MATTHEW WATKINSON WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com TWITTER: http://twitter.

com/fishsnorkel

IS IT POSSIBLE TO PERFORM A SELFLESS ACT?

Every action whatever is the effect of a motive. Charles Darwin
SUMMARY
Possibly, but mostly definitely not.

THE SATISFACTION CONFLICT

For those who would like me to flesh out the proceeding assertion a little bit, I dont think its possible to perform a selfless act because of what I like to call the satisfaction conflict. For those who dont know what Im talking about (this will be everybody given that this is the first time I have told anybody about it), everybody faces a satisfaction conflict every time they do anything at all, because every possible action has a corresponding inaction (and vice versa).
Every deliberation is then said to end when that whereof they deliberate, is either done, or thought impossible; because till then we retain the liberty of doing, or omitting, according to our appetite, or aversion. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651)

The existence of one absolutely guarantees the existence of the other and they are mutually exclusive, because theres absolutely no way of choosing one without simultaneously rejecting the other. Whether youre authorizing nuclear war or just an extra serving of rhubarb crumble the decision is always the same: to do or not to do; and that necessarily creates a satisfaction conflict that is unavoidably reward driven (which is the more satisfying of the two options?).
X or X

In fact, this is based on such bomb-proof mathematical logic that I might even call it a cast-iron law. Watkinsons Law of Opposite Possibility perhaps:
Every action requires rejection of an opposite and mutually exclusive inaction, and vice versa.

To be fair, Watkinsons Law of Opposite Possibility is little more than an extension of classical logics Law of Excluded Middle...
Everything must either be or not be. Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy (1912)

...but I cant find it specifically applied to the subject of choice and, thus, I might just claim it until someone tells me off. Not that it really matters: whether I can legitimately claim it or not, a satisfaction conflict does exist because a decision must be made. You can have more rhubarb crumble or not have more rhubarb crumble but you cant have both. What you choose all depends on the objective of course. For instance, if the objective is saving your colleagues, then jumping onto an unexploded grenade is better than not jumping onto it, and if its better than worse, its more satisfying, according to the objective (if your objective was saving yourself, then jumping on the grenade was stupid, but it wouldnt change the objective and just means you chose the least satisfying option because you thought it was the most satisfying).
Nevertheless many a civilized man, or even boy, who never before risked his life for another, but full of courage and sympathy, has disregarded the instinct of self-preservation, and plunged at once into a torrent to save a drowning man, though a stranger...Such actions as the above appear to be the simple result of the greater strength of the social or maternal instincts than that of any

MATTHEW WATKINSON WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel

other instinct or motive; for they are performed too instantaneously for reflection, or for pleasure or pain to be felt at the time; though, if prevented by any cause, distress or even misery might be felt. In a timid man, on the other hand, the instinct of self-preservation might be so strong, that he would be unable to force himself to run any such risk, perhaps not even for his own child. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871)

And this is true for all actions or inactions with an objective (it isnt actually possible to perform an action without an objective; if you say I will run over there for no reason for example, theres still an objective: to run over there for no reason). In fact, it is impossible to intentionally select the least satisfying option, because if you decide to select the least satisfaction you have changed the objective. If you decide not to jump on the grenade because its less satisfying, the objective is not about saving your colleagues anymore, its about achieving the least satisfaction with respect to saving your colleagues, and that means not jumping on the grenade is better than jumping on it; i.e. it is more satisfying, according to the objective. In fact, this is also based on such bomb-proof mathematical logic that I might call this a cast-iron law as well. Watkinsons Law of Opposite Objective perhaps:
Actions with objectives require rejection of opposite and mutually exclusive inactions with opposite and mutually exclusive objectives, and vice versa.

Again, it is little more than an extension of classical logics Law of Excluded Middle, but, again, I cant find it specifically applied to the subject of choice and, again, I might just claim it until someone tells me off. Either way though (again), where choices exist, decisions must be made (choice does not exist if an individual isnt exposed to it. For instance, someone who doesnt know theres rhubarb crumble available doesnt have to make a choice between having more or not having more), and that must involve selecting the best option while simultaneously rejecting the worst. And if one is better than the other, it must be more satisfying, as a function of the objective.
X > X or X < X

Helping a drowning child must be more satisfying than not helping a drowning child or you wouldnt help the drowning child. Not stealing must be more satisfying than stealing or you would steal. Giving must be more satisfying than not giving or you wouldnt give. It all depends on the objective and that all depends on who you are. People are different and you are the same (i.e. different). As a function of pre-existing conditions your decisions will be motivated by personal satisfaction and the greatest motivator of all is probably the judgment of others:
...another and much more powerful stimulus to the development of the social virtues, is afforded by the praise and the blame of our fellow-men. To the instinct of sympathy, as we have already seen, it is primarily due, that we habitually bestow both praise and blame on others, whilst we love the former and dread the latter when applied to ourselves; and this instinct no doubt was originally acquired, like all the other social instincts, through natural selection. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871)

A conclusion subsequently reached by Thorstein Veblen (among others)...

...the usual basis of self-respect is the respect accorded by one's neighbours. Only individuals with an aberrant temperament can in the long run retain their self-esteem in the face of the disesteem of their fellows. Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899)

...and supported by recent research into the social benefits of something called competitive altruism (its also called conspicuous compassion by some people, and, perhaps just as accurately, showing off by others):
Competitive altruism is the process through which individuals attempt to outcompete each other

MATTHEW WATKINSON WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel

in terms of generosity. It emerges because altruism enhances the status and reputation of the giver. Status, in turn, yields benefits that would be otherwise unattainable... By spending excessive amounts of energy, time, and money on activities that are essentially unselfish, altruists advertise some desirable underlying quality that is costly to obtain and therefore hard to fake, such as resource control, genetic endowment, health, or vigor. The altruist benefits by increasing his or her social status and thus the likelihood that he or she will be chosen as a mate or ally. Hardy and Vugt, Nice Guys Finish First: The Competitive Altruism Hypothesis (http://ht.ly/2ZGjB)

Why else do you think humanitys adoration-crazed celebrities (I want to be loved!) are so eager to be seen running round the planet caring for everything? That they, alongside all other garish do-gooders, dont know theyre just self-absorbed glorification junkies satisfying their primitive egotistical needs does not in any way mean they arent the former doing the latter.
The alarming thing about our own conspicuous compassion is that its bearers seem to believe in their own emotions... Kenneth Minogue

Indeed, the dissociation between what people think theyre doing (selfless benevolence) and what theyre actually doing (obtrusively pandering to the prevailing zeitgeist to generate as much fawning adulation as possible) also neatly explains why the results of public compassion can be abysmal (has environmentalism achieved anything significant at all beyond improving the social reputations of those who make a lot of environmentalistic noise?) without having any impact on their cultural status or general self-image:
If altruism is a signal, the benefits of the altruistic act to the recipient may be largely incidental. Gilbert Roberts, Competitive altruism: from reciprocity to the handicap principle (http://ht.ly/308bD)

It would seem that as long as were perceived to be helping, thats all that really matters:
Our culture of ostentatious caring concerns, rather, projecting ones ego, and informing others what a deeply caring individual you are. It is about feeling good, not doing good, and illustrates not how altruistic we have become, but how selfish. Patrick West, Conspicuous Compassion: why sometimes it really is cruel to be kind (2004)

Clearly, and however much this may upset those who think Homo sapiens are unique in the animal kingdom (and indeed the entire history of life on Earth), our selfless generosity is still based on the same kind of selfish biology as the selfish behaviour of any other organic being...
When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. James Whitcomb Riley

...although its definitely worth pointing out that not everybody thinks human morality emerged as a natural extension of our biological heritage:
The concept of guilt and punishment, including the doctrines of grace, of salvation, of forgiveness...were devised to destroy mans sense of causality: they are an attack upon the concept of cause and effect!And not an attack with the fist, with the knife, with honesty in hate and love! On the contrary, one inspired by the most cowardly, the most crafty, the most ignoble of instincts! An attack of priests! An attack of parasites! The vampirism of pale, subterranean leeches! Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist (1895)

Whether human morality is a predictable function of natural selection or not though...

...the social instincts, which must have been acquired by man in a very rude state, and probably even by his early ape-like progenitors, still give the impulse to some of his best actions; but his actions are in a higher degree determined by the expressed wishes and judgment of his fellowmen, and unfortunately very often by his own strong selfish desires. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871)

MATTHEW WATKINSON WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel

...the satisfaction conflict is logically unavoidable and that means it is impossible to perform a selfless act, even when there arent social benefits at stake. The problem is that selfless acts must be completely selfless. Not just a little bit selfless; they must be completely selfless. They cant involve personal reward of any kind. If you help an old lady get on a bus for example, there cant be any reward. But if you help an old lady get on a bus it must feel better than not helping her get on the bus, and if it feels better than not helping her there is, quite clearly, a reward. Its definitely kind and helpful, but its definitely not completely selfless and the reward doesnt even have to be positive; less negative is more satisfying than more negative so theres still a reward even if both options make you feel worse than you did before you started. For all those who think they can torpedo these conclusions using the anonymous donator phenomenon, heres a concise summary of some recent research into the psychological benefits of anonymously donating:
...the mesolimbic reward system is engaged by donations in the same way as when monetary rewards are obtained... Moll et al, Human frontomesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation (http://ht.ly/1JvTq)

And lets not forget the potential role of supernatural motivations in anonymously donating either...
85% of all humans have at least one imaginary friend! Me, Here (Source: http://ht.ly/30bdC)

....because actions based on supernatural incentives are some of the least selfless of all. Helping the poor so you can spend eternity in paradise is not selfless in any way for example, under any circumstances. It may be kind and helpful, but it simply isnt selfless. In fact, if selfless actions or inactions cant involve any personal satisfaction whatsoever, theres only one possible approach: acts of selfless purity can only involve not doing things you hadnt even considered. For example, not killing a man youve never met is totally pure. Its not satisfying in any way (or disatisfying) and the man isnt dead; its totally selfless and, as a sort of concluding observation, any evil thats not committed in this way is exactly the same.

COURAGE
....the ability to do something that frightens one. Concise Oxford English Dictionary (http://ht.ly/30LF4)

As a final note, I would just like to make it clear that I dont think courageous acts are diminished by their less-than-completely-selfless motivations...
Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities... Aristotle

...but neither do I think it changes the fact that being recognised as courageous (or at least not cowardly) may be a significant part of the motivation to be courageous (conspicuous courage).
The motive to give aid is likewise much modified in man: it no longer consists solely of a blind instinctive impulse, but is much influenced by the praise or blame of his fellows. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871)

CONCLUSION
It is impossible to perform a completely selfless act and anybody who insists otherwise should take five minutes to work out why they care so much, paying close attention to the fact that it shouldnt matter either way to those who genuinely lack an ulterior motive.