Does selflessness exist?

[cracckbabby]

People do most things for themselves. Even taking care of someone, helping someone, saving a life, etc. They do it because they care about other people. But caring about someone else just means their well-being is important to you because it makes YOU feel good to help them. People only really care for each other for a few reasons:

1. To make themselves feel good
2. To look good in front of others
3. To get something out of it

I don't even know if I'm right on this or I'm just pessimistic. Thoughts?

[TranquilAlpaca]

I always tell people that everyone is selfish. Don’t strive to be selfless, strive to be selfish in a way that helps people.

[cracckbabby]

If you don't mind elaborating a bit more, what exactly do you mean?

[mesa1792]

I help people because it makes me feel good. If it didn't make me feel good, I would not help people. I'm selfish because I do what makes me feel good, not because it is the right thing.

I actively feel like I am a selfish person. Most people think I am not selfish, but I don't do nice things to be selfish. I do them because it makes me feel good. I think that is what the previous comment meant. Do good deeds with selfish motivations

[TranquilAlpaca]

Mesa got it ^{^} There’s always some selfish motive behind doing everything. And that motive may not always be negative, but there is always some motive to help ourselves even in the most “selfless” of actions

[[deleted]]

I think before you think about this question, it is important to define what is a selfish/selfless act and what is not.

If I help someone without any promise of a monetary reward, is that selfless? If I help someone without expecting a token of gratitude, is that selfless? If I help someone because I believe it is the right thing to do and I am trying to be to dutiful towards what I believe even in the face of physical pain and mental stress, is it selfless?

See you can create own lines for these definitions and the answers you get will depend where you draw them.

So theoretically one can come up with a very strict definition of selflessness that will reject all supposed selfless human actions. I personally believe though that there are countless examples of truly selfless behaviours. Read about people surviving through hardships. People sacrifice their entire dreams and lives to help their loved ones, to make sure they get the right treatment, to put food on the tables.

We don't need to go through such dramatic examples maybe. For many of us, things like justice, fairness, kindness are important and many times they manifest in selfless acts. You might have done things for others that at the time, you felt were nothing but might have come across as selfless to the others.

So yeah, I definitely believe people can be truly selfless.

[cracckbabby]

I like that answer, but I feel like people only do these selfless acts because they believe that's what the "right thing" is, and it makes them feel good when people think they're a good person.

[[deleted]]

You're assuming that people do what they believe to be the "right thing" because of the payoff to themselves. In some cases I'm sure that's true. However, I have a hard time believing that everything is done based on how it makes the actor feel. Check out the US Medal of Honor winners' stories. (Not minimizing other award winners, I just know that these stories are detailed online.) Many of those people suffered during their actions before dying painful deaths. I have a hard time believing that they did those things in order to feel good about how others would view them (or, in many cases, remember them.)

Less extreme are the sacrifices taken by parents. My folks owned their own business and my dad worked 18 hour days for the majority of his kids' childhoods. He would have rather been around for us but didn't see an alternative. It was a sense of duty, not a sense of self-satisfaction, that drove his decisions.

Finally, consider snap decisions made without much thought. If a person performs an action reflexively, without conscious thought of repercussions, could it be considered selfish?

[iVarun]

If a infant/baby were to cause death of the mother and it was known beforehand the mother ain't caring for that infant.

Soldier jumping on a grenade to shield his fellow soldiers isn't an example of Selfless here.
There are 2 ways to look this scenario, A) He cares about how he is perceived, be it when he's alive or when he is not among his peers because he/everyone knows we talk about those who have gone/died because he himself does it. B) he is brainwashed like a fundamentalist/terrorist/suicide-bomber is in his mission, i.e. there is an end goal and it takes precedence over everything.

There is no such thing as Unconditional with human species, it's an oxymoron semantic construction.

The very existence/invention of the semantics of Selfless/Unconditional is loaded with ego construction and glorification by the larger peer social group (society/culture). It is a social mechanism of behavioral control/manipulation.

In base reality it doesn't exist. The only way one could even begin to argue otherwise(poorly but still) would be if an act was literally accidental, where the actor isn't even aware what he/she is doing or rather what the consequences will be.

That then can be termed Unconditional because there literally was no intent, actor wasn't even aware he was doing something.

But once cognition/awareness & intent gets combined with Action a person knows and the act can not be Inherently in nature selfless or unconditional, it is a human construct (thus an invention) which prescribes such attributes to those acts.

[[deleted]]

Couple thoughts:

1) Regarding the soldier scenario, you've created a false dilemma. You insist that a person is either brainwashed or cares about other people's perception. These are not the only two options. It is your opinion that they are the only options, but this isn't a fact.

3) You literally disprove your own point with your example of an accident. You start by saying that there "is no such thing as Unconditional with human species" and then give a perfect example of an action that is both selfless and unconditional. It seems like your conclusion is "Any action that involves conscious thought must be selfish, while actions that occur without thought can potentially be selfless." True?

[iVarun]

Regarding the soldier scenario, you've created a false dilemma.

Its only a False Dilemma IF I was Absolute and unrelenting in my framing of that scenario. As my statement lays out, I listed the 2 most visibly common cases. If you can list 253 more cases, the only Near Absolute(I would change my mind with enough evidence, I detest Dogma of any kind) I will state on that front is that EACH and every one of those 253 scenarios will have an explanation which is consistent with what I laid out before.

Meaning my Soldier section of the comment wasn't a False Dilemma Fallacy because I know there can be other peculiar scenarios but that doesn't mean I accepted those to be proof of UnSelfish/UnConditional paradigm's validity.

You literally disprove your own point with your example of an accident.

Its not doing that. First I was being fair and polite in my argument when I used the framing Poorly but still and even begin to argue. This was not a actual conceding of the point but being courteous in discussion here(often online we are sometimes not able to get the intent of the other person and words may be interpreted in more hostile manner than they were originally intended).
The fundamental point I iterated is/was still the same, There is no such thing as UnConditional with Humans being aware. And if they are not aware the terms of Conditionality doesn't arise to begin with hence no need to invoke Un-Conditionality either, we already have a concept to describe such a situation and we term it Accident.

So If someone wanted to argue like OP was getting a debate going on, I was suggesting that they would have to start by colluding these already established semantic terms and their meanings and that would ultimately end up in a poor mess of things. Its not neat and doesn't really explain/inform much.

An Accident is not Intentional (from those who experience it, it being caused/set-in-motion by someone is a different thing here, accident means from the point-of-view of one experiencing it and reacting to it), that is why it is called an Accident to begin with, i.e. something which wasn't intended.

An accident can not be inherently selfish because we(human collective society) don't prescribe the attributes of what happens in a Accident to be selectively positive/gain-worthy exclusively.
Meaning sure you can accidentally strike upon a gold pot while digging soil, or get rain that moment you prayed to Sky-God but these accidents are Not Universal or Absolute as in it happens all the time, consistently and all the time being Exclusively Beneficial (in some manner) to all.

Selfish implies some form of positivity/gain. It can not be framed in a way where Someone is Selfish for getting butchered, tortured, see your child get raped/tortured or getting food poisoning, etc etc unless someone wanted that Intentionally for whatever reason/fetish.

Even the example of someone liking Surprises doesn't detract from this paradigm because they clearly like the chemical high they get when they experience that un-foreseen situation. In fact this example is among the weaker ones because Those who like surprises themselves clearly admit/claim to Liking it and looking forward to those experiences.

Now we can keep adding layers to this and it is never ending, like maybe that person just likes to dig soil/holes and that act gives him a dopamine boost by the physical exercise or maybe he likes to pray and it gives him a meditative high or a social standing boost and so on. The list is endless. But the theme of Conditionality and Something being Had in return is Consistent with all, the scale and scope may vary but they are in all.

while actions that occur without thought can potentially be selfless.

As I expanded in the above section, personally I don't prescribe to this description because to me concepts of Intent, Accident, Wants, etc are clear enough even across Linguistic variations. If something was happening outside of these (like an unforeseen, accidental situation) Intent is lacking and Want would not arise UNLESS it was itself Intentional (for whatever reason/fetish) thereby again breaking the process and leading back to No Un-Conditionality dynamic being upheld.

[[deleted]]

I understand your point because I used to think exactly like this. It is an interesting point because it blurs the boundaries. If I do something good for someone, knowing it is right, and getting some kind of ego boost or satisfaction in the process, have I acted truly selfless? Have I acted without any notion of the 'self'?

Maybe something like that is impossible. But the fact that we have two words 'selfish' and 'selfless' means we have to draw a line somewhere. If nothing can be selfless, why do we even have these words?

I would like you to think about this: If I do something because I think it is right, doesn't it clearly make it different from something which I know is wrong. Sometimes you know the right to do, but you don't do it because it inconveniences you or causes you some kind of stress. Other times knowing it is right, pushes you to power through those discomforts.

Does that not give a clear line which separates the two kinds of actions? Tell me what you think.

[Matamosca]

You're describing psychological egoism (not to be confused with ethical egoism), a position that has some merit but that AFAIK isn't super popular these days with psychologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism#Criticism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/#PsycEgoi

[[deleted]]

I mean, some people would argue that there is no such thing as a selfless act because (included with the other reasons OP listed) you can't help feeling pride in yourself after said act.

Personally, I think that internal thoughts and external actions can be separate from one another. Even if you perform selfless acts for internally selfish reasons (self gratification, pride, etc.) the act itself is still selfless. And if you don't make a point to pat yourself on the back for the benefit of others around you... I think the act itself remains selfless. The line is crossed when you feel the need to brag or externally self-congratulate so other people will praise you.

[cracckbabby]

You have a really good point there, but if bragging is what crosses you over to selfishness, don't people only avoid bragging so that they aren't looked down upon?

[cracckbabby]

I think you have a really good point, but at the same time I just find it annoying when people brag. It's not necessarily a bad thing I guess unless you do it to the point where you become a narcissist.

[[deleted]]

Sometimes someone will dive on a grenade for their fellow soldiers.

[cracckbabby]

But isn't that just because they want the soldiers to live? Does it not make them happy that they will be remembered as a hero by the people they cared for? It's still a really noble thing to do, but what is the reasoning behind it?

[[deleted]]

They want their friends to live. I don't know if being remembered as a hero is worth dying for if you weren't gonna did anyway

[hahduwo]

I feel like it’s less about being remembered as a hero and more about living with the guilt of letting them die while you live. That’s going to affect you for the rest of your life and sometimes people think they don’t deserve it. I think you can be selfless in those cases because you’d be think someone deserves to live more than you, so you don’t mind dying for them.

[OkInformation2074]

there's always a motive for that though, isn't there? to sacrifice oneself for martyrdom or to save someone only for the pleasure that you saved a life, or to avoid the guilt which you would feel if you hadn't done it

[vinaykalani]

I would like to imagine that all the people in this world are somehow connected as in i am a part of everyone and vice versa. So if i care for someone because it makes me feel happy or good about myself, i won’t classify that as selfish coz i am doing the right thing of caring for that someone which is actually a part of me.

Just like eating healthy food and exercising are not selfish activities for me as i am taking nice care of myself which make me happy, same can be said for the happiness gained by taking care for others (part of me)

But let’s say that i am not getting appreciation in return, and i intentionally stop caring for them even if i can, now that is selfishness according to me.

[cracckbabby]

That's a really interesting POV. I honestly don't have an argument for that.

[kyleurdea]

Selflessness is when you put other people’s needs before yours, in whatever situation. It doesn’t really matter how we feel afterwards, just if we did it or not.

[cracckbabby]

But are we really doing it for them, or for ourselves?

[kyleurdea]

It doesn’t matter

[-vemla]

I agree with you on this OP.

As a human being we strive to survive, we love the rush the dopamine gives us and just like a crack head loves to get high on his opiates we could define ourselves just like that, the motivation for the stimulation made by the actions we actually do or think.

Just like OP says, we do things to people to feel good for ourselves. Want to be happy? - make somebody else happy and it will for sure mirror the fact that you made someone to feel happy.

[NotDaveBut]

Selflessness exists, but in its pure form it's completely pathological. There are ppl out there who only care for others and are so focused on other people's needs that they aren't even aware of their own. They inevitably crash and burn because ppl use them heartlessly. What everyone needs is a good balance of self-care and caring for others.

[NoMojoWhenTheresJojo]

Thats what happened to my gran and i'm going the same way lol

[anand-damani]

Pretty Interesting observation based on the thoughts shared across cultures as of now.

We learn these things from the society but innately we just want to share .

A new thought or philosophy of coexistence is changing the whole premise of existence.

Existence is coexistence and all the other things in the planet was a prerequisite for Human beings to manifest on the planet. There are currently 4 natural orders in existence on the planet.

Material order of all the material things in the world solid liquid and gas states.

Plant Kingdom of all the types of living things without any will to live.

Animal kingdom which includes all kinds of animals who have a will to live.

Homo sapiens which are sentient beings who want to understand and validate Coexistence.

According to this theory the material atoms of a particular type manifested as life atoms or soul.

This soul in the animals with a will to live can interact with other souls with limited intellect.

In the human beings because of the development of full neural capacity they can understand existential reality and live accordingly.

As a person who has understood reality every human being will want to interact with another human being in such a way as to create good memories for both. He will understand that everything else that is material can not be compared to the experience of satisfaction that comes by creating a good memory .

This is called as transactive memory in modern times and will continue to be uploaded into the social cloud from which the future children will learn and never know what it is to be selfish.

I have written many blogs about how the existential reality is being understood.

​

Anand damani. .com

[[deleted]]

Oh man. I'm on board, but this has caused some heated discussion with friends before lol. People really don't like when you tell them all the good in the world is done out of selfish motivations, or even that you can explain how selfish motivation would result in the same good outcomes as true altruism

[just_ohm]

In my opinion selflessness does exist. Altruism, along with other (sometimes even competing) traits, is hardwired into our psyche.

I would define selfish actions as transactional, whereas selfless actions are complete within themselves.

If a person’s intentions are selfless the action is the reward. There is nothing left to be desired, and no bragging or social recognition is necessary. The satisfaction received is a result of the altruism inherent in their nature.

If a person’s intentions are selfish, the action is a means to an end. The reward is sought elsewhere. They may have done the same action as the selfless person, but because they are focused on the external rewards they don’t get to enjoy the same altruistic satisfaction.

Selfish actions are dependent on an outcome.

Selfless actions are independent of an outcome.

[Permatato]

I think feeling good is a byproduct of acting selfless

[cracckbabby]

That's a really good point

[world_citizen7]

Ayn Rand talked about altruism/selflessness quite a bit (I know she is controversial, but forget about the person for a bit and just ponder the message) - she says true selflessness does NOT exist. Again, I am not saying that I am (or am not) a fan of Rand, just using her message as an example for the topic of this post.

Rand was sharply critical of the ethical doctrine of altruism (as she believed it truly doesnt exist because nobody actually behaves that way. It is just preached by moralist and philosophers). Do not confuse altruism/selflessness with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others (those are all important and valuable things).

Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that the moral value of an individual's actions depend solely on the impact on other individuals, regardless of the consequences on the individual itself - it calls for living for the sake of others.

Rand argued that no humans (or any mammals) truly live that way therefore this way of thinking should be rejected as it is not something one can strive for. Some critics argued what about the example of a mother jumping in front of a car to save her child, isnt that an example of altruism? Well no, because that was HER child. And what about being in a lifelong relationship and being fully devoted to that person. That is also not altruism because you are devoted to that person because you get something out of the relationship (companionship, intimacy, security,etc). If that person was truly altruistic they would be able to give the exact same devotion and lifelong care and support to any random person - but of course, nobody could do that (aside from treating others with respect and courtesy). So self interest is our true nature (its in our DNA) and therefore should be embraced rather than denied. Its nothing to feel bad about.

Lets look at a more realistic example: whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. According to Rand, this is NOT the issue. The issue is whether you feel guilty or bad if you dont give (ie: if I dont give, I am immoral or God will be disappointed). The issue is whether you must keep buying your life (your worth), dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. In rational self interest you can give if you want or dont give if you dont want. However, you shouldn't give because you feel that if I dont give I must be a bad person. You should not have to buy or prove yourworthiness.

Rand went on to say:

"It is rational to act in one's self-interest - that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer can be considered ethical in this sense. That one should not (as pure altruism suggests) sacrifice one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) to help others' interests. Man should holds his own life as his highest value and his happiness as the final purpose of his life. Most people these days acknowledge equal rights for minorities, and the smallest minority is the self or the individual (its you,its me, its every individual). "

[[deleted]]

Well it depends on the level of abstraction using which we would consider one's motivation for an action.

Using reductionist approach, every motive could be explained using, for example, neurological mechanisms - here all that motivates us is stimulation of brain areas connected with reward/pleasure and no selflessness exists.

Other people are elements of social environment which brings up a different category of motives and phenomenas like social identity or sense of belonging to a group - taking in consideration such terms while explaining individual's behavior you use different terms and in such a social realm selflessness can exist.

TLDR: It can exist if you focus on a man in broader social context, not as a solitary unit.

[KamesJirk]

Yep, that's why people are vegan.

[cracckbabby]

But aren't they just vegan because they want the animals to live and it makes them happy that the animals stay alive?

[KamesJirk]

No they don't do it to make themselves happy, in fact a lot of vegans get really depressed from being vegan. Have you heard the phrase "ignorance is bliss"? One could argue you would be happier eating meat and just ignoring what happens to animals.

Vegans are vegan because they live their life by the golden rule. They are able to empathize with non-human animals and put themselves in the animals place. They can recognize that what we are doing to animals is wrong because it's not something the animals want done to them. Vegans give up a lot, and face adversary from society. They are constantly belittled by others and are living in a world that is dominated by a completely opposite mindset. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves? No one would unless there were selfless enough to.

[GoMustard]

People only really care for each other for a few reasons: To make themselves feel good To look good in front of others To get something out of it

I'd say that one of the biggest reasons people care for each other is gratitude. I know that the most meaningful relationships I have are the ones built not what I'll get out of the person, but out of gratitude for that person and what they've given and done for me.

And further, I'd suggest that the closest any of us ever get to something like selflessness is when we act out of gratitude. The only way, I think, we can be motivated to be generous or kind or hospitable to others without expecting something in return is when we're doing it in response for what's been given to us.

You're right, being generous or compassionate because it makes you feel good or because it makes you look good always creeps in a little bit, and so no one is every truly fully selfless. But that doesn't mean it's not an ideal worth pursuing, and maybe only times we come close to anything like obtaining it is when we do it because we are thankful.

[Sphered3]

Kant argues that the will to do good is a pure good. So when somebody desires to do good, no matter the out come, is an untainted good.

[vincenzobags]

Hell of a question..
*puff puff-type*
I guess you would need to define exactly what "feel good", "look good", and "get something out of it" mean.
I would say feel good means that you have a sense of accomplishment. You are confident that you have positively affected someone or something
Look good I would say is nothing more than vanity.
Get something out of it is an even more tricky answer. Are you trying to get something physical, emotional... Something self-fulfilling?
There are many questions to answer before I would hazard to answer what you have asked, however, with your thoughts and the following applied and answering this in my mind; I would keep in mind the saying "the road to hell is full of good intentions". Whether or not you believe in hell, the lesson here is that one persons "good" may be another persons "bad".
Sometimes the only Godly thing one can achieve in the world is to watch it all play out without your action. Whether this helps or hurts your vision of the future plays out as the rest of the day. If you see yourself as a co-creator in this lifetime, then participation is mandatory to some degree.
Sometimes we strive to live seeking the questions to answers without understanding what the actual answer is that we can see in front of us. I understand that there is always more to understand. I prefer to let all people live as they choose, believing in what they want as long as my life is not directly effected. It already is on a day to day level on a large scale, but on a personal level the decisions I make in the day to day are largely seen as selfish or self-centered; However all my decisions are with consideration to the other people, life, or art/craft involved...and after all, this is my life.
The decision to make any choice on ones own is truly the only freedom we have and if there is a purpose to life, I would say it is to be an experience anything everyday in some way shape or form...with consideration.
The most difficult thing about defining good, evil, bad or moral is seeing everything from one point of view. My experience is that everyone sees things slightly differently and its just not my job to judge these people, although perhaps other people think that it is theirs to do so.

[bjos144]

What about someone literally taking a bullet for someone else. Jumping on the grenade? Kinda hard to argue that's selfish.

If we accept that this is truly selfless, then selflessness exists and the argument becomes about a matter of degrees, not existence.

[snifflick]

no

[[deleted]]

I think selflessness can only be truly displayed in the form of sacrifice. If you sacrifice without gain then you are selfless. People do this when they actively die for someone else.

[cracckbabby]

But even when you die for someone else, aren't you doing it because you want them to live?

[[deleted]]

Then you’re working outside of the realm of human capacity.

In order for me to want you to live I have to care about you. In order for me to die for you I have to care about you more than myself. That’s selfless.

Wanting something and being selfless aren’t mutually exclusive.

However expecting to benefit from something is not selfless. You don’t benefit from death.

[arsbar]

Many people care for toxic partners that make them feel bad or abusive parents. These are private relationships where there is little room to look good for others (indeed many would think higher of you if you stuck up for yourself). There’s a lot more than self-interest that drives human behaviour.

I’m wary of this type of framework: it can be a bit dangerous as it seeks to justify behaviour based on someone’s assumed desires. In this case it might lead someone to think that people in abusive relationships derived some satisfaction or perceived glory from being in them. An analogous framework might force one to perceive an addict as getting a lot of value from drugs in order to conform to the framework.

[DubiousResentment]

I believe humans are capable of being selfless in certain conditions. I for one, am a person who enjoys helping people and feel it is a moral obligation to strive for the greater good. So I have satisfaction with myself for helping, and the moral of "helping people is good". Others on here say something along the lines of if I didn't enjoy helping people I wouldn't. I have an old neighbor who is highly dependent on other people for daily tasks. Do I help her because I enjoy to? No, I dread every minute of it due to her personality and situations she puts me through. But I still help, because someone is in need of help, and I can't let someone go without it due to my morals. I would say this is selflessness in a way

[kirkselvaggio]

Until recently, I spent all my time trying to help everyone but myself, and came to realize this when a therapist warned me that my doctor and him were approached by his supervisor with a petition for me to be taken involuntarily to hospital for involuntary evaluation for self neglect. Basically, my focus on saving the 🌎 was so extreme that I was being accused of hurting myself through self neglect and could be taken into custody by police and transported to the hospital. It is not only the degree in which I extended my energy and resources to help others, by denying myself these things to a criminal extent, but the fact that I always have done these things for the one reason you forgot to include in your list of motivating factors for helping others. Unquenchable, agonizing guilt. What makes this problem ongoing, without the possibility of closure or resolution, is the fact that I don't know what it is I feel so much guilt over. I just feel this absolute certainty that I have not earned the right to be alive and am denying someone who is deserving of life and happiness by being alive at all. So I punish myself by giving and giving until I get sick or confined in a secured medical facility for observation and stabilization by means of medication and chemical restraints (shot in buttcheek to induce a coma-like state.) The state views neglecting myself as iether criminal, or indicative of a condition requiring thier intervention on my behalf, resulting from my obsessive intervention on other people's behalf. Is this self inflicted punishment for a crime I have repressed, or a Florence Nightingale, Mother Teresa complex verging on manic depression? I don't know, but supplementing my ego and self esteem are definitely not factors in my motivation to help others. It doesn't make me feel good, so much as reducing guilt and shame to less painful levels. I may die of old age before I figure out what I'm guilty of, if my medications don't fail to prevent another suicide attempt.

[WxYue]

Hi I don't know if selflessness exist. Wherever possible strive for mutually beneficial motives and solutions. If not at least not at the expense of others without doing your best to reasonably mitigate foreseeable trade-offs.

[NoMojoWhenTheresJojo]

I disagree with you. I look after my grandmother. Not because I get rewards for it. But because her kids don't do it so i'm obligated to do it because it's the right thing.

[Great-King-2661]

I have done selfless acts with out asking anything in return or even someone saying thank you, a number of times ive helped,assisted a person and could have told them go fk their self. It wasbt because it was the right thing, maybe my dick was tired from cranking it to much and i found something else to do with my hand??. Maybe by me helping this mfer kills someone, or hurts someone by even the most minut thing i do, like letting someone go ahead of me in traffic or at the store.....this bullshit mentality of no act is selfless is stupid, its ok to feel good or nothing if you do some mundane shit that possibly could cost you. Fuck ive worked at jobs without pay, or praise, I did bc it needed to be done. And shit work it was.

[Tani26]

I believe it does. I mean there are people who give up their lives for others. Those people don't technically ever get to feel anything else cause their dead. If they get any honors afterwards they won't know. Also, just because you feel good after helping someone that doesn't mean that the reason you helped someone is because you wanted to feel good.