Is There a Selfless Action?

We've been looking a lot recently on the potentiality of a society in which the government becomes little more than a protection agency to its people. The idea being that the personal freedoms of the individuals can be released without any kind of chaos due to spontaneous rule (order merely happens of its own accord by the people). The good news is that this video believes that such a society is definitely possible. The bad news is that it's based on the principle that human beings are inherently selfish.

John Nash created actual mathematical formulas to prove this behaviour using what is known as "Game Theory". It's a set of equations based on the idea of poker and how the move you make is based on what your opponent thinks you'll do. Basically how we're trying to manipulate one another for self-gain and are constantly suspicious of one another. It was the style of strategy used during the Cold War at the time, which Nash also applied to the people. If true, a functional society could be created, so long as we thought of everyone as an opponent. Our personal wants would be in balance and thus no chaos. (He won a Nobel Prize for this)

R.D. Lang supported this theory and tried to undermine trust and love. He also came up with disturbing results by mathematically proving through various matrices that relationships were really all about manipulation and control over one another. Focused on couples, this data could easily correlate to family and even simple friendships.

So is there such a thing as a selfless action or do we really only act in our own benefit?

She's in it for the free cookies.

When you really think about it, technically the answer is no. I mean any kind of known relationship is sketchy because if you do something nice or kind, you're getting into the person's good books. Even if you simply donate money to a charity anonymously you're getting a positive feeling from it, which can be seen as selfish. The show Friends tackles this issue when Joey challenges Phoebe to find a selfless good deed. She eventually comes to the realization that the only way to truly be selfless is by making herself miserable for the benefit of someone else.

I don't agree with that... at all. Yes, you can get a good feeling from doing something nice for someone, but is that really such a terrible thing? I mean there are people who donate their time and effort volunteering at soup kitchens for no reason, except to be helpful. I'm sorry, but there comes a point where you just have to say "screw the technicality". I think it goes back to the Kantian Ethic principle that it is the intention that matters. If you plan on doing a good deed and have absolutely no intention of getting something out of it, besides a good feeling or maybe a smile, I say you get it.

Yes, for couple relationships I can see where they're coming from with the whole power struggle concept, but I think that if it's really that big of an issue it should be talked about or the relationship just won't work. It's all about a balance of give and take on both ends. Friendships are all about helping one another out and so long as it's not entirely one sided, I don't see a huge issue with it.

In the world we live in, I think a little good deed can go a long way to brighten up someone's day. Hold the elevator door, pay for the person behind you in the drive-thru, compliment a complete stranger. Little actions like that can go a long way, and studies show they're much more likely to perform a similar gesture to someone else. All this detailed disection into the nature of "selflessness" is really getting in the way and it's kind of sad we have to analyze this kind of positive action. Especially when these little gestures shine a ray of hope in the world.

Never stop questioning.