@SuicideDo: Bear in mind that others may not agree with me, and this is my view of the subject. Selfishness is "I want!" Egoism is "How will this help me?"

Further, I believe that altruism is less the act of giving in order to better one's own position, and more the act of confirming the value of humanity as a universal construct, and acting upon that definition. By acting upon that definition, you would want to help others, as they are not any different than you at an inherent level. Hence, one is 'selfless' not in that they do not consider the self, but that they do not place the self on a higher level than other selves. By this construction, it would be reasonable to help others in the same ways you would help yourself, as it contributes to the larger, universal construct of selfdom; sacrifice, in this case, is a gift from the self to help confirm the universal selfdom, and therefore benefits all. It leaves no room for denigrating others or holding prejudices.

I usually consider myself selfless, but not always altruistic...

I consider that the self is nothing more than an awareness, an observer, to which has no needs or desires.

The body is merely a vessel through which we observe the experiences of said body.

I consider myself selfless in that my self is not my body, and that my body can and should be used to the benefit of all selves, however i do not make sacrifice. i take what my body needs in order to continue to survive, while helping to teach others how to do the same, and keeping mind that everything i take and need, will be needed by others as well. i feel altruism is defined by sacrificing one's needs to the benefit of another. giving up a meal to feed a younger, hungrier person is surely altruistic, while sharing the meal with the youngster is selfless.


I know that's backwards, but i cant help but feel that self sacrifice is more damaging to the whole than beneficial.

You got your definitions reversed.


Ok. Why do you need to swap words though?

As I've understood it, selflessness is ultimately damaging in its definition of being utter sacrifice without care to the self: the self is a part of the greater community, be it the local neighborhood or the greater human gathering of organisms. Rather, selflessness is the nature of a sacrifice to be reserved at times of great need, in order to protect the whole from a harm greater than itself, that could threaten all the selves within that whole. The community is merely the composition of the selves together, and not greater than the sum of its parts, though.

what elk said. but i dont think i really needed to swap the terms im confusing myself now :S pardon me, i didnt get much sleep last night :3

Case and point: Selflessness is inhuman. As immoral as it may sound, survival of the fittest exists, if you can't survive on your own, then you shouldn't survive at all.

Why not, though, if we have the means to mitigate the effects of natural selection? And who's to say what 'fittest' means any longer, since our society has passed the stage where purely physical merit determines who is in power.

well i dont expect anyone to hear about it if i am out in the middle of nowhere, chopping wood to stay warm and cook my food...


either i can live like that alone and without worry about the world i live in, or i can try to show the world i live in the worry free lifestyle i have experienced.


I chose to try to share the wealth of my experience.

I'd say, instead of fit being used to define physical prowess, it, in the context of todays society, means rational.
Now then, egoism holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value (quid pro quo).
Now, Ayn Rand wrote in one of her books the following;
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good."
Something to chew on.

that's very eloquently put, of rand. it is a solid logic that offers little to no room for argument.

But i digress, we are all individual selves, it is therefore impossible to truly be selfless, or without self. no matter where you go, there you are. your self will always follow.

The rationality is pretty good, but demerits the self in the process, assuming that the self "itself" is incapable of altruism.