Is it truely possible to perform and altruistic act?

Question

altruistic means completely selfless, you get no benefit from it whatsoever. But I think it's actually impossible for the human species to do this. At some level I get a reward for everything I do. Can you think of something that provides no reward either emotionally makes you feel good or a physical or monetary reward? Thanks in advance

Answer 1

At some level. That level can be far and above the level the altruistic act is being preformed on.

For instance. Fall on a grenade and save you comrades and your reward will be The Congressional Medal of Honor; posthumously. Quite a difference in reward level.

Check out Robert Trivers and his theory of reciprocal altruism.

Answer 2

What comes to mind is habit. A wealthy person may start giving for a number of reason but as time goes on does it out of habit. Habit is an action done with very little thought.

Answer 3

Maybe it´s not just about the reward people get but also about the reward they believe they will get eventually.

Maybe some people who do perform altruistic acts think that in the long run and eventually, the universe will reward them in some way that they cannot know yet.  That could be a motivation to perform a selfless act (ie when you know that the person  who benefits will not or cannot reciprocate).

It would be like applying the golden rule to their relation not just to the person their act is directed towards, but to the universe as a whole ... a world view thing.

Answer 4

Uh, you've got your definition wrong.

It's where you do something for no material gain or benefit for yourself or a loved one.

Thus, when people give money, time, and energy to help others, and get no material gain, that's altruism. That they then feel satisfaction, or a reduction of grief over tragedy, or that sort of thing, it's still altruism.

If you define altruism out of existence, then of course, you've defined it out of existence.

But then it's no longer a word with any function.

We distinguish people who do kind things for non-altruistic reasons (it benefits me in business to be known as a philanthropist, for instance), from those who are genuinely altruistic, because that's an important distinction to us.

If you redefine the term so that nothing fits, we'll just have to make that distinction in a much clunkier, wordier way.

Answer 5

It would seem to be hard to exclude human survival from an altruistic act. Person dives in, saves a child and drowns. Was it altruistic or did they get something from having the child grow up and reproduce?

You may have defined "altruistic" and "reward" with the bias that nothing could fit the criteria. A "reward" many be very small and have a tenuous link to the act. However you might still count it

Answer 6

many argue that altruistic 'behaviour' is biologically based i.e. inbuilt etc

a bird calls to alert other birds within it's flock that an intruder (etc) is close.  Standard example- increases it's chance of danger: however also increases the flocks chances of survival.  

considering evolution/natural selection, we have the same inbuilt processors, and yes-at times-display altruistism.