Is selflessness a good thing?

[joel]

Christians often urge people to be selfless. But is this really a good thing?

At http://bible.crosswalk.com I did a search for the word "selfless" in "all translations" (includes about 25 of the most popular english translations), and it occurs twice, both in the Message paraphrase, and both are references to Christ, and not commands to be selfless. The word "selflessness" never occurs. Scripture talks about humility a lot, which I understand to mean not being arrogant or thinking of yourself better than you are (or acting accordingly). And if that is all we mean by "selfless," then I have no problem with it.

But it seems that "selfless" is used to mean more than that--to mean not acting in ones own interest, but only in the interest of others--and to mean not thinking of yourself at all.

So this raises three questions:
1) Is this what scripture teaches?
2) Is this even possible?
3) Is this desirable?

As for the first question, I am not aware of Scriptural teaching to be selfless (in the sense I described). If someone else knows of something, please speak up. Some ostensible candidates are not really:
- "whosoever shall lose his life'shall preserve it." (not selfless)
- "the last shall be first" (not selfless)
- "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all." (not selfless)
- "But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven" (not selfless)
- "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what He has done, whether good or bad." (as well as various other passages mentioning rewards in heaven--are an appeal to self-interest)
- "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?" (another appeal to self interest)
At most, these passages present an apparent paradox, appealing to your self interest at the cost of your self interest. But unless we are willing to grant that such statements are logical contradictions, we have to assume that they refer to forsaking one thing held dear for something better. C. S. Lewis described it as giving yourself to Christ in order to become more yourself than otherwise possible.
For that matter, the whole concept of selflessness seems better suited to eastern religions that speak of losing yourself (your identity and individuality) and becoming part of the cosmic One (completely, when you die). Even God, who paid the greatest price ever, does all things to bring glory to himself.

As for the second question, is it even logically possible to be completely selfless? We have free will, which means the ability to do what we desire to do. But to do what I desire is not selfless. Even if I desire to do that which is not in my self interest, it is still a fulfillment of my desire to do it. In order to be completely selfless, one must act contrary to ones desires. One also must not take any pleasure in helping others. Furthermore, being moral (e.g., being just) benefits ones self. So the only way to be selfless is to be immoral. But if being selfless is moral, then we have a logical contradiction. It seems to me that performing a completely selfless and virtuous act is not possible (one or the other--selfless or virtuous--but it seems that no act can be both.)

As for the third question, it seems that selflessness is not even desirable. It is not desired by those on the receiving end--imagine performing sex as an act of selfless charity. Imagine being in a marriage where your spouse's "love" for you is motivated only by a self-sacrificial pity. And it obviously is of no benefit to yourself. If we dig deeper, we can see that eating or doing anything for your own health is not selfless. Likewise, doing something for the benefit of your own soul is not selfless. If a sacrifice is selfless, then it is a destruction of ones self. In fact, only the destruction of ones own soul is completely selfless.

Thus, as far as I can see, selflessness is not commanded or advocated by Scripture, it is not possible, and it wouldn't even be good or desirable if it were. Therefore, it seems to me that we ought to stop telling people to be selfless. Yes, tell people not to be arrogant, and tell them to surrender to Christ, but I think we need to be more specific about what we mean when we tell people to "lose their life", or "be last" or "be the servant of all." Christians often condemn those who always ask "what's in it for me?" But that condemnation is unwarranted, as I have already explained, and is contradictory, because we simultaneously urge them to seek to acquire the greatest of all treasures, to their greatest possible gain.

[Conductor42]

You cannot help others if you do not take care of yourself.

[zemmiphobiac]

It is my understanding that being selfless is putting others' well-being above your own. Here is an online dictionary definition: "altruistic, showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others."

Being selfish is putting your own wellbeing above others'. Again, an online dictionary definition: "concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others."

Being selfless does not logically entail total self-deprivation. How can I help others if I starve myself, or go around being glum because I never derive any pleasure from life? No, putting others' interests above my own requires that I am mentally and physically healthy. It does not mean I must take no pleasure in helping others; on the contrary, I will certainly get more done if I enjoy doing it.

You mentioned marriage. If both partners put one another's interests above their own, it does not mean their love for one another is merely self-sacrificial pity. They may genuinely desire to do this, and enjoy doing so. Of course, our sinful state dictates that will will be unable to live like this all the time. In a selfish marriage, neither partner may be happy because they will both be looking out for themselves, and at the same time expecting their partners to look out for them. It's a setup for disappointment. (I am generalizing here.)

You mention sex; if both partners are trying to please one another, I find it hard to see how both will fail to enjoy it.

I venture to add parenting as an example. Most parents pour a huge amount of effort into their children, and make innumerable sacrifices to do so. Indeed, they put the well-being of their children above their own well-being. Now try to tell these that what they do brings no enjoyment to them. It certainly brings a great deal of pain, but they are rewarded for their efforts. Selfish parents may neglect their children, and they are 'rewarded' with trouble children. (I am generalizing here.)

This understanding of selflessness seems consistent with Scripture and Jesus' life.

Scripture such as "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all" indicates that putting others' interests above your own not only benefits them, but also benefits you. So, according to Scripture, selflessness is indeed good for all parties involved.

In summary, selflessness is putting others' above yourself. In doing so, you may benefit, but that does not mean you are being selfish.

Hope some of that makes sense.

Edit: I must add one more thing. One person whose interests we should put above our own is God. Notice that God wants the best for us. (He clearly expresses this in various Scriptures. Psalm 23 is a popular example.) It is obvious that putting God's will above your own will bring glory to God and at the same time result in the best case scenario for you. Again, the theme is that selflessness is not only good for others, but also good for you.

[joel]

It is my understanding that being selfless is putting others' well-being above your own.

The selflessness I described also falls within that definition. So I think we have to agree that utterly putting others' well-being above your own is not good. It would be wrong for someone to destroy their own soul for the well being of another. So we are left with a question of when and to what degree ought we to place the well being of others above our own. As you say, we must feed ourselves, because it enables us to better help others. But I could argue that, in general, helping yourself makes you better equipped to help others. Achieving great accomplishments, making lots of money, makes you healthier, wiser, and better able to give. Most of the time (maybe always), trading value for value is better for another person than just giving them something. Teaching someone to fish is better than giving them fish, and it also creates a new source for you to obtain fish in the future. So by what principle do you determine when to do something in your own interest or another's?

You argue that you benefit by benefiting others. That is, you are better off than you would otherwise be. Because this is true, wouldn't others (and you too) be at least as well off if you placed your own well being first, than if you placed others' well being first? Indeed others may likely be better off if you place your own interests first, than if your actions in your own interest consist only of providing a subsistence for yourself (let alone acting at a cost to yourself). Note that by "your own well being" I'm not talking about satisfying your momentary whims or the expediency of the moment, just as we do not mean that when talking about the well being of others--e.g., it is wrong to "spoil" someone.

In a selfish marriage, neither partner may be happy because they will both be looking out for themselves, and at the same time expecting their partners to look out for them. It's a setup for disappointment. (I am generalizing here.)

But in a selfless marriage, it can be the case that neither parter is happy because they will both be looking out for each other. A simplified example is O. Henry's short story "The Gift of the Magi", in which the man and wife give each other selfless gifts, but in doing so, destroy their own self-interest in such a way that negates the worth of the gifts, and both are worse off.

Now, I'm pretty sure that type of thing is not what you mean by "selfless". But the problem is that we reinforce the concept that "it is good to place the well-being of others above your own well-being. And the opposite is immoral," and accept that as being an absolute and true statement. But if people apply that consistently and completely, then they end up praising evil and condemning good. And it is not clear what is the principle to divide or morally balancing between doing what is in your own interest and the interests of others. Is it not at least as good (if not better) to tell people, for example, "you ought to serve your wife in such and such way because it will make you better off (in the big picture/long run/eternity)", than to tell people "you ought to do it because you ought to put her interests above your own, even if you are worse off (in the big picture)?" For what profit is it to gain the whole world but forfeit your soul? It seems better not to tell people to de-prioritize their own self interest, but rather to inform/pursuade them that helping others is in their own self interest.

It seems to me that God made men for a particular function. When a machine is used for something other than its intended function, it often causes unnecessary wear and tear and breakage of the machine. Likewise, to act contrary to the proper function of man is what leads to death and destruction, and therefore is evil. On the other hand, acting in accordance with that proper function is good, and of the greatest possible benefit to ones self. So it could be said, in that sense, that the most selfish man is the most moral.

My point is that we cannot make blanket statements that "selfishness is evil" and "selflessness is good", because if applied consistently it creates a false dichotomy, and we end up praising evil and condemning good. Or at least if we are going to use those terms, we have to be a lot more specific with the definitions, and be careful not to condemn the good kind of selfishness.

[Soyeong]

I don't see selfless to mean not thinking of yourself at all. You can still think about yourself and try to better yourself, but you draw the line of doing that at the expense of others.

[joel]

I don't see selfless to mean not thinking of yourself at all. You can still think about yourself and try to better yourself, but you draw the line of doing that at the expense of others.

Let's look at all the combinations; an act could:
1) benefit yourself with no cost or benefit to others
2) benefit yourself and harm others
3) benefit yourself, and benefit others
4) harm yourself with no cost or benefit to others
5) harm yourself and harm others
6) harm yourself and benefit others

(4) and (5) are obviously bad. In my earlier posts I gave arguments that (6) is also bad (indeed, harming yourself makes you less able to help others).

(3) is obviously good. Where you seem to draw the line is at (2), and possibly (1). In my previous post I argued that benefiting yourself (in the big picture) is never bad for others (in the big picture). And harming others always harms you (in the big picture). That would make (2) impossible. (1) is at least improbable, and perhaps impossible because benefiting yourself tends to benefit others. If so, we are left with:

- to benefit yourself (in the big picture) is always good
- to harm yourself (in the big picture) is always bad

It seems to me that the real issue is not prioritizing other's well being above your own or
doing things at the expense of others per se. Rather, the issue is one of
- needing to look at the big picture
- a lack of the information that benefiting others can benefit you.

After posting my previous post, I looked around online and discovered that John Piper has already been saying what I've been writing in this thread, calling it "Christian hedonism".
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_hedonism
Especially read the C. S. Lewis quote on that page,

"If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and to earnestly hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I suggest that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling around with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."

[Darth Executor]

Let's look at all the combinations; an act could:
1) benefit yourself with no cost or benefit to others
2) benefit yourself and harm others
3) benefit yourself, and benefit others
4) harm yourself with no cost or benefit to others
5) harm yourself and harm others
6) harm yourself and benefit others

(4) and (5) are obviously bad. In my earlier posts I gave arguments that (6) is also bad (indeed, harming yourself makes you less able to help others).

I think you're wrong. Six would include giving your life for your brother, something Jesus praised as being the greatest love.

[zemmiphobiac]

I agree that it is wrong to harm yourself if it will bring no net benefit to the population. However, I disagree that selflessness logically requires this sort of behavior.

There are times when an amount of pain, suffering, and/or deprivation on your behalf will benefit the community as a whole. In my opinion, it would be right to endure in this situation. (I believe you agree here, it is a "big picture.") Jesus endured harm (humiliation, torture, death) for our sake. If a soldier throws himself on a grenade to prevent certain death for both him and his comrades, it harms him but benefits the others.

It seems you are arguing against selflessness taken to the "extreme." Where harm to self is maximized, and any good that may befall oneself is diverted to others (or at least one tries to divert it.) In doing this a person does not maximize benefit to others. This is not selfless, it will work to minimize the good this person can bring to the community.

(BTW, I agree with your point that there is nothing wrong with enjoying something, or seeking to do something for one's own benefit. I just feel that you can do both while still being selfless.)

[joel]

I think you're wrong. Six would include giving your life for your brother, something Jesus praised as being the greatest love.

- Is it not true that exchanging your physical/biological life for your brother brings you a greater value than your physical life? What about destroying your soul (i.e., choosing spiritual death) for the life of your brother? The only way to truly harm yourself (in the big picture) is to sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. If you sacrifice a lesser value (e.g., your physical life) for a greater one, then you did not really harm yourself, but benefited yourself.

- By what principle does one choose whether to give his physical life for the benefit of his brother, or continue living in order to be a greater benefit to a greater number of people?

[joel]

It seems you are arguing against selflessness taken to the "extreme."

That is part of my point. If "selflessness taken to the extreme" (i.e., taken to its logical conclusion) is bad, then we are incorrect in asserting merely "selflessness is good."

(BTW, I agree with your point that there is nothing wrong with enjoying something, or seeking to do something for one's own benefit. I just feel that you can do both while still being selfless.)

And this is my other point: if your greatest gain comes from "giving yourself" to one or more other beings (i.e., God), then why tell people to be selfless? Why not tell people to be as selfish (in the big picture) as they can, and inform them of how the greatest possible value may be acquired? Is that not the apparent paradox Christ presented?--that the greatest selfishness is the greatest selflessness, and vice versa--the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

And thus, again in this sense, we are incorrect in asserting merely "selflessness is good" or "selfishness is bad".

[Darth Executor]

- Is it not true that exchanging your physical/biological life for your brother brings you a greater value than your physical life? What about destroying your soul (i.e., choosing spiritual death) for the life of your brother? The only way to truly harm yourself (in the big picture) is to sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. If you sacrifice a lesser value (e.g., your physical life) for a greater one, then you did not really harm yourself, but benefited yourself.

This wasn't what you originally said:
" (indeed, harming yourself makes you less able to help others)."

If you are dead you can't help others anymore. This would exclude the interpretation you offered above.

- By what principle does one choose whether to give his physical life for the benefit of his brother, or continue living in order to be a greater benefit to a greater number of people?

I honestly don't think God expects you to make calculations to see which outcome would be the most profitable. I agree that you shouldn't just throw your life away for something stupid, but I also think God is more interested in your intentions than your efficiency.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I think there are some other issues involved here.

For instance, as a student, I have a drive to succeed. I want to be the best student in class. I want to have been read up and be one that the professors take notice of. Is that a bad thing? What of the alternative? I want to be lazy and just be an average student? If I'm going to enter a field, why not do the best at it that I can?

I believe that Christian ambition is an important thing. We need people who desire to be out there speaking to people like Billy Graham does or like my personal hero, Ravi Zacharias, does. We need people who want to write the books that deal with the falsehoods that are put out there.

Instead, we get told to not seek something for yourself. Yet when I read the Scriptures, I do see that honor is something held up highly. That Jesus does tell us how to get honor. I see that Proverbs is written so that we will succeed and Proverbs 16:3 even says to commit to the Lord our plans and we will succeed! It means it's okay to make your own plans and to want to succeed at them.

I can consider this also with marriage. I am a single guy and I won't deny, one reason I want to get married is that I believe God created sexuality to be a joyful thing and I want to experience it. When I ask a girl out, there is definitely an element of self-interest there. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. I think God created me to desire the good things in life.

Those are just my thoughts on the issue.

[zemmiphobiac]

That is part of my point. If "selflessness taken to the extreme" (i.e., taken to its logical conclusion) is bad, then we are incorrect in asserting merely "selflessness is good."

This is where I disagree, and why I put quotation marks around "extreme." (I think it was a poor choice of words on my part.) I disagree that putting others above oneself logically entails this type of behaviour:

Where harm to self is maximized, and any good that may befall oneself is diverted to others (or at least one tries to divert it.)

But to do what I desire is not selfless. Even if I desire to do that which is not in my self interest, it is still a fulfillment of my desire to do it. In order to be completely selfless, one must act contrary to ones desires. One also must not take any pleasure in helping others.

I contend that you do not need to act contrary to your desires to be selfless, but fulfillment of desires should not be the primary purpose. One may act in full knowledge that helping others helps oneself, but helping oneself should not be the only or primary consideration.

Do any of these describes your position: (?)
"When making decisions, Christians should put their own interests first (ie be selfish), because that ultimately will lead them to do what is best for both them and the community."
Or, "When making decisions, Christians should put their own interests first. A side effect of this is that others will benefit."
Or the mindset, "I help others because helping others helps me."

My viewpoint is:
"When making decisions, Christians should put others' interests first. A side effect of this is that you yourself will benefit, but your own benefit should not be the primary goal. Likewise, you may fulfill your desires, but it should not be the primary goal."

I feel that the difference in thinking is important. For example, I am concerned that promoting selfishness to Christians would make it easy to justify any action that one would like to undertake, with use of the mantra "Anything that's good for me, or fulfills my desires, is good for everyone in the end, so I should definitely perform this action!"

Doing what is best for oneself may indeed be doing what is best for the community, and I can agree that the two may always be synonymous. However, I contend that the motive is still important. By all means say "Rejoice, for when you put others first you will be richly rewarded!" This, to me, makes sense of "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first." But I am concerned that saying "Rejoice, for when you put your own needs first others are richly rewarded!" may miss the point of these passages. Why are we told to put ourselves last, if putting ourselves first is just as good? Why are we told to start serving others (as opposed to serving only ourselves), if serving ourselves has the same effect? I understand these passages as Jesus' reaction and response to a certain attitude among his listeners. The attitude appears to be personal gain as a primary objective. He says that this attitude is incorrect, and a change is in order.

(Apologies if I misunderstand or misrepresent your position. Also, I hope I do not come across as combative.)

[joel]

This wasn't what you originally said:
" (indeed, harming yourself makes you less able to help others)."

If you are dead you can't help others anymore. This would exclude the interpretation you offered above.

Fair enough, I acknowledge that that "interpretation" I offered is not sufficient. My response, I think, is more compelling.

I honestly don't think God expects you to make calculations to see which outcome would be the most profitable. I agree that you shouldn't just throw your life away for something stupid, but I also think God is more interested in your intentions than your efficiency.

Are you saying that that is generally true, or just in the case of giving your life? By what principle does one decide whether to make calculations in making a decision or to make the decision purely on good intentions?

[joel]

It means it's okay to make your own plans and to want to succeed at them.

That was a good post, and also in line with what I have been saying. One thing I'd add is that I think it is also good to take pleasure in your good accomplishments--that God intended us to do so.

And I don't think this is pride. As far as the English definition, pride is (dictionary definition) an "inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc." It is not merely a high opinion but an inordinately high opinion--that is, thinking yourself to be greater than you actually are. Placing yourself above your peer or at the same level as your better would be evil, e.g., thinking that you are/will be like the Most High is evil. On the other hand, we are called to make correct value judgments, and this would seem to include regarding yourself. (E.g., God is not sinfully prideful in his ultimately high opinion of Himself, because He holds a correct value judgment of himself.)

I guess we should also add that to be arrogant or take pleasure in having people beneath you, is also sinful pride. Rather, we ought to take pleasure in greatness, as opposed to despising greatness in others. (The sin there would imply that you are delighting in vice and despising virtue.) Indeed, man's greatest true pleasure is in delighting in the ultimate Great Being.

And the opposite of pride is called humility, it is not "selflessness" or "prioritizing the welfare of others above your own."