comment: >
  
  Self interested
context: This kinda begs the question...   
  What does it mean for an act to be selfish? >
  
  Oh dang I'm not sure... maybe done without morality? Or done for the benefit of oneself? Both occurring simultaneously? >
  
  Most people would say that selfishness/selflessness is defined by the intended beneficiary. That means that the same action can be either selfish or selfless depending on the intent.  
  For example, giving to charity can either be selfless (because you aren't considering your self in the decision - you're primarily thinking about the wellbeing of others) or selfish (because you're doing it so you can boast to your friend about how much of a good person you are).  
  This is a non-consequentialist (not based on outcomes) form of morality.  
  The way that Immanuel Kant explains this problem is by defining what he calls "good will", which is the test for whether an action was moral. He says that an action taken with good will means that your only consideration when taking the action was the intent to abide by moral law. What that means in simple terms is that whether or not it's selfish is defined by what you were thinking about at the time you took the action. If you were thinking exclusively about your moral obligation to help others, then it's a moral action, but if you paid any attention at all to your own happiness then it was not purely "good will" motivating you. In this way, Kant would agree with you that just because an action made you happy, it's not necessarily selfish.  
  Non-consequentialism isn't the only type of ethical evaluation though.  
  For instance, a naturalist is someone who believes that our moral sense was invented by evolution to help us co-operate with others. From a naturalist point of view, all actions made with the intent to abide by moral law are actually selfish actions, because they invoke the biological desire to take actions which increase your likelihood to reproduce. A utilitarian (someone who thinks we should maximize the total amount of happiness in the world) would reject the entire classification of selfish and selfless because all that matters is the change in the total amount of happiness.   
  The question I would float is whether you had awareness that taking the action would improve your happiness before you did so. If you were aware it would make you happy, it is therefore impossible to possess purely good will as defined by Kant. If you didn't know, it's not possible for an action to be selfish because you didn't have access to the information required to act selfishly. It's not necessary that an action that makes you happier was selfish because it's possible to be unaware of that occurring, but in the vast majority of cases humans are good at predicting their future emotions and reactions to things in simple ways. >
  
  Did Kant ever expand on your question?
  It seems rather obvious to me that doing good things feel good. The question you float can only work once. After you feel good for doing good the first time, have you spoiled your good will? You will never be able to perform truly selfless acts because you have a memory of feeling good that first time?
  That seems rather silly and not well reasoned to me >
  
  I don't think Kant would argue that, sort of for the reason that you outline.
  More than acting from Good Will he postulated that you should treat people as ends and not as means. If you acted purely towards the ends of others in disregard for your own happiness then you would be treating yourself as a means and not an end.
  By acting in contradiction between the actions of yourself and others you would be violating your ethical imperatives. >
  
  Ah, the categorical imperatives. I always had trouble figuring those out. As words they make sense but you could apply another level of reasoning to them again to infinity (I know that you know that I know style) and eventually I decided that Kant didn’t have a workable model >
  
  I think it's because people mistake "helping to set off my dopamine release" as "having ulterior motives completely unrelated to your needs for help but for my greed."
  A good example of helping and feeling good is nurse aide work. It's not easy, it's dirty, it's thankless, irs underpaid, its a lot of work, you're almost always understaffed. But there are many CNAs who feel a sense of relief or dopamine release after fully cleaning a patient and getting them cleanly bundled and tucked in bed. 
  Sort of like vacuuming or cleaning your house and feeling good after. Or finishing a task and feeling a sense of accomplishment.
  Reddit has a lot of people who sit behind a monitor and never make moves. I'd hardly listen to them about whether doing something helpful for others make you feel good is selfish >
  
  Agreed. The whole "but altruism is selfish" line always felt a way of cheaply invalidating doing good to feel less guilty for not doing good.
  I mean, literally any act humans do is motivated by brain chemicals. Eating, drinking, sleeping, walking etc. Any complex task is going to involve neurological motivators. To meet this imaginary standard for "pure" altruism unmotivated by any brain chemicals, you'd essentially need to have neurological dysfunction. Imagine if I just walked around saying "Actually, you didnt accomplish anything your entire life, it was your dopamine." Technically true, but also insufferably irrelevant.
  IMO, a much more relevant criteria is "prosociality" i.e. behaviour which aims to benefit others.
  Occam's Razor says that people just parrot this line as a defense mechanism. Because the idea that someone else is altruistically motivated makes others feel defensive. I used to organise climate protests and fundraise for poverty alleviation, and people would come up with all kinds of ulterior motives to "explain" my behaviour. I got accused of being brainwashed by foreigners a lot/being attention seeking, both of which were untrue if given any thought.
  Edit: I think this Tweet summarises it well:
  My biggest problem in these ACA debates? I don't know how to explain to you why you should care about other people.
  If someone starts from a position of "Well there has to be an ulterior motive because caring about others is impossible", I genuinely just can't explain my way through. So many people just can't conceive of themselves being motivated to help others that they deny the possibility that anyone else could be.. >
  
  Well the issue there with being accused of doing altruistic things for selfish reasons is because a lot of these people are fed bullshit and easily eat up the garbage from Fox News about how people are trying to take advantage of politics to push green energy and renewable and climate change because there is incentive for some industries. It's such a politicized topic that no matter what genuine reason you do it for, you will almost always be accused of being selfish by some pundit. I wouldn't pay attention to that even more than redditors. People have been calling each other nincompoop over politics for over a century. The more things change, the more things stay the same. >
  
  I think this Tweet summarises it well:
  My biggest problem in these ACA debates? I don't know how to explain to you why you should care about other people.
  If someone starts from a position of "Well there has to be an ulterior motive because caring about others is impossible", I genuinely just can't explain my way through. >
  
  Yeah thats such a dumb argument because with these people they always feel like this right up until they're the one that needs help. Then all of a sudden it's "we should stop spending money on immigrants and more on Americans who need help." Well yall fucking voted against your own interest is what goes in my head hearing that. >
  
  This has some innately circular reasoning to it, when you follow it far enough.
  We do what we believe to be moral, and feel good for doing so. But we believe it to be moral because we're taught to feel good for doing so. If taught a different moral compass, the same acts can be of various morality. Stealing? Amoral. Stealing bread to feed oneself? Questionably moral. Stealing bread that is being hoarded, in order to feed others? Usually considered moral. But not by the owner of the bread? Morality is super flexible, and is entirely subjective. It changes constantly, often to reflect whatever rationale we are seeking in order to feel our own actions are "just". 
  People don't kill because they're evil. They kill because it is justified in their morality. "Following orders" or "defending my country" or "surviving on the street" or nihilistic acknowledgement of inevitability. But never "because I'm evil". In all cases, the act is taken for self-serving reasons, but rationalized to fit in to a moral framework that allows the person to feel "okay with themselves". When society tries to force someone to adopt a morality that would break that "I'm a justified good person" self identity, people break, mentally. We don't do well with internalized mortality that we don't feel justified by. We either change morality, or we lose our minds trying to find a way to fit their identity into the framework.
  Tldr: morality is subjective and flexible. We do what we do because it feels good (physically, even emotions are physical reactions). We change morality as necessary to rationalize the behaviors we want to do, so we can feel good about them. Once we have behaviors we can do that make us feel good, we do those. >
  
  
  But we believe it to be moral because we're taught to feel good for doing so.
  
  I'd disagree with this. We believe things to be moral because we're taught they're moral, but the emotional reactions are not taught. It's possible to feel bad for having done what one believes to be right, and it's possible to feel good while holding the belief that one's actions were wrong.
  Edit: actually I'll also disagree with this:
  
  People don't kill because they're evil. They kill because it is justified in their morality.
  
  People do things for many reasons and motivated by many values. Killing for morals is only one example of such. Moral values may be an explanation for what reason a person had to kill another, but so can any mumber of other values. >
  
  Its not selfish to be happy. It is selfish to be happy at the expense of others. >
  
  Not strictly at the expense of others, but often in spite of others feelings.
  For example, you randomly win a pizza at a baseball game, and you choose not to share it with the people around you.  There is no loss to you for sharing because you can't eat it all, and it will be unapetitizing in short order, but you still choose not to share.  You not sharing is also no loss to them either.  Regardless, choosing not to share in that situation is pretty selfish. >
  
  We humans are feeling beings with logic. All kinds of good neurochemstry happens when we do something like help others or other good things. Whilst the intention is to do good for it's own sake the chemical reward is actually higher. If we're simply doing good with the intention of the chemical reward it just doesn't work the same. So on top of moral (logical) reasoning there is a whole chemical reward that becomes associated with the behavoir. Usually there are both classical (chemical) and operant (intelectual) conditioned rewards going on for good behavours. >
  
  I don't think the problem is feeling happy for doing something good, but being motivated to do something good because it makes you feel happy. But even more so than happy: justified. >
  
  People do good things because it generally makes them happy. That's why they do it, and it's not selfish. 
  If doing anything good made everyone feel horrible, chances are not many people would do anything good because generally no one likes to feel horrible.
  I don't see your logic.
  Doing something good but filming it for any reason makes you selfish because then you do it for the wrong reasons. >
  
  That depends. People might do good things because the effect it has on the object makes them happy, that's a good motive.
  But alternatively (or mixed in?), people do good things because it makes them feel like a better person (justified). This motive is selfish. It may still result in a good thing being done, but the status of the one doing it either hasn't changed, or has only gotten worse (by status is mean real status, not their perceived status).
  I think I'm still going to give you a delta because I think you still caused me to move my position a bit, and it's helped bring clarity to my own thoughts, thanks! ∆ >
  
  There's also a difference between feeling like a better person for doing a good thing or deed in one's own opinion and feeling like a better person than someone else who didn't also do a good deed or bragging about it to others.
  I'll use the same example as before. People like to feel like they are good people and can do good in the world and for others. That does not make them selfish.
  I truly believe that someone who thinks someone else is selfish for doing a good deed and feeling good about it and themselves is, in fact, the selfish person. For no good reason other than to paint someone else's good actions as negative and would judge others for finding moments of positivity in life. 
  Also, how do I give deltas? >
  
  "There's also a difference between feeling like a better person for doing a good thing or deed in one's own opinion and feeling like a better person than someone else who didn't also do a good deed or bragging about it to others."
  Absolutely! One is much better than the other! But in either case, why, in doing a good deed, do you need to consider the goodness of yourself in the doing of it?
  You've actually changed your example a little bit, so I'm not quite sure where you stand. Before, you said people did things because it makes them feel happy about what they've done. Now, you say it's to feel like they're a good person, and they can do good. Is this actually what you think? The problem with this line is that even though you are actually causing good for others, those people are essentially a tool to you feeling good about yourself. To be "selfless" is to think of your self less. That is, I actually become small in my own eyes; I stop caring so much about myself. I become a tool for the purpose of actually doing good to others, rather than others being a tool to my being good.
  Your last paragraph is an assumption that makes it hard to convince you away from what you believe. There's not much I can really say against it, except that perhaps they say it because of a deeper ideology than the enjoyment of tearing others down in order to feel better about themselves?
  You can give a delta by either saying ! delta but as one word, or with the triangle I used. But you need to give a reason with it. But apparently I might be wrong since mine hasn't registered :/. >
  
  Here's a mind bender for you: maybe being selfish isn't necessarily a bad thing. >
  
  This. Most animals prioritise their own selves to survive, and i think humans are the same. Sure, we have evolved to realise the value that helping others brings us, but i think we do it because we are selfish. 
  Making friends? We have a need for social interaction, and friendship usually brings a lot of benefits and happiness to a person. 
  Sacrificing something for the sake of others? We can live without many things, and it's not strange that we might prioritise the people we know over some item or a portion of our time. 
  But what if the person we help is not someone we know and understand the value of, and who we might not see again? Well, we have changed a lot since we came into being, and we picked up some behaviours that don't necessarily benefit our survival. One of these is morality, or at least a part of it. Acting on our definition of morality is also selfish, because in our deepest inner workings, we do it because it makes us happy, or fulfils a need we have developed. 
  But none of these things are commonly considered bad, yet they're made completely because we are incentivised, whether it's something external, or our own bodies. Selfishness isn't a bad thing, it's just used too often to make people seem less important as people, as and excuse to harm them. Keep in mind it can also be used wrongly but with a good effect, like in a failed relationship, it's better for either party to say the other is selfish and leave, than staying and hurting eachother more. >
  
  Selfishness isn't bad, it's the motor of every thing. Don't change the définition of selfishness, just understand that it isnt Inherently bad. >
  
  I disagree that it is the motive for everything, as explained in my OP. >
  
  You are wrong. Their is nothing in the world a human can do that isn't motivated by "selfishness". We do things because they make us feel good or not do them will make us feel bad. That's all there is. >
  
  I do not believe that everything we do is to make us feel good, as explained in my OP as well. >
  
  There's a whole episode of Friends about this - which is about as in-depth as a view like this needs examining. >
  
  That's where "Friends" done you wrong - the concept of Altruism is def worth focus, but only Ross ever embraced that - and he was, unfortunately, mostly a punch-line. >
  
  I feel like that misses the point of the original statement though. Nobody is genuinely suggesting that because it makes you feel good, it's selfish.
  So my point is, suggesting that describing altruism as selfish because it makes you feel good is deserving of about 22mins of examination in an average sitcom. It's not a view. >
  
  Correct me if im not getting the point straight.
  Let's take the recent scadal with MrBeast, people were calling him egotistic ect. for helping a 1000 blind people.
  Let's say he was doing that because it makes him fell good, at the even if you think that selfish, a 1000 blind people that could see yesterday, can now see today, they are finally able to enjoy time with their kids wife and family, and can also do things by themself.
  Even if you might think it is egotistic and selfish, 1000 people can now lead better lived.
  Personal opinion:
  I would rather have 100 people help each one 1 homless person and feeling happy about it, than having 100 not helping. >
  
  its not about number of people helped, its about motivation. who is actually altruistic? I argue noone >
  
  If you would argue that no-one is ever altruistic, I think you’ve narrowed the definition of what it takes to be altruistic/selfless to the point that you’ve failed to allow the selfless/selfish dichotomy to be a meaningful one. >
  
  Can you explain this more? What if there was just one selfless person? Is that enough? >
  
  I don’t think it’s about any specific count and I think defining whether you should consider a person as selfless / selfish is harder that looking at individual actions so I’ll start there. Say we divide actions it selfless / selfish / neutral. We could define a rule for what these mean and then categorize all actions into these groups, but it’d also be equivalent to first categorize actions by whether you think they should fit the category and then extrapolate the definitions. I’d basically say that if you aren’t including giving to charity with the primary purpose of helping those less fortunate as selfless, for example, the definition being created is overly restrictive. Similarly I think if you are classifying something like drinking water as selfish because you could give that water to someone else, that’s much to broad a definition of selfish and should he considered neutral. The goal is to create definitions that broadly match what comes to mind when people use the terms. And from there you can say people are more or less selfish/selfless by generalizing the patterns of their actions - and there are certainly plenty of people who tend toward selfless behaviors. >
  
  I think I agree, but for different and simpler reasons. Let’s say it’s selfish to want happiness of any kind. Ok, but if your brain decides to give you the Good Chemicals because you made someone else happy or improved their life or did some other form of selfless good, that’s where the selflessness lies.
  How could a lack of selflessness produce happiness when the self has achieved no benefit- or downright made some sacrifice? It cannot.
  Ergo, even if you do like the happiness you feel and wouldn’t be doing that good action without the expectation of that reward, the part of your brain that controls your happiness can get the happiness either way and chooses to do so when you make the good choice and not if you think about it and then decide not to. And that’s a selfless part of your brain- a selfless part of you >
  
  I don't get how the reasons are different. This seems like kind of what I was saying. >
  
  One argument for why a person who is happy from doing an act of kindness may be seen as selfish is that the happiness derived from the act is a form of personal reward or satisfaction. The act of kindness is performed with the intention of making the giver feel good, rather than solely for the benefit of the recipient.
  Thus, if a good deed is performed that is meant to be rewarding for the giver, I don't perceive it exactly as selfish, but towards that side of the spectrum. >
  
  Yes, but I don't believe that is the purpose, as explained in my OP. I believe it is for the logical moral reasoning that one does a good act, and that the happiness is a side effect of knowing that is met. >
  
  I agree. You're not a narcissist.  But,  those people's with their shitty moral accounting skills are spreading faster than a pandemic.  Seriously, they're only capable of black and white thinking, and they carry those who did it scorecards that goes back centuries. It's all bad eventhough its mostly Good.  Doing favors to develop social capital or expecting reciprocity in life. It's all bad, even though it's  mostly good, if there's a - !.  It's as if they don't know Lady Justice carries a fishermen's scale with her eyes blinded for a reason for Christ Sake.  My God, It's like they think America was founded on equality and the fragmentation not being synonymous with equal. 
  Kant, someone teach them the meaning of numbers outside of maths. >
  
  Humans have evolved over millions of years to be social animals. We instinctively do nice things for other humans and our brains are flooded with feel good neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin as a reward. The humans that happened to be less social were more likely to die to the cruel, unforgiving natural world. The humans that were slightly more social were more likely to survive and pass those genes/instincts/behaviors on to their children.
  Everything we do is to fill an ecological niche. Ants are not more moral than humans because they are more selfless/communal. Sharks are not immoral because they are more independant than humans. They aren't immoral because they eat other animals to survive either. Humans, ants, sharks, and every other living thing is selfish. Everything we do is to propagate our species. 
  Richard Dawkins famously took this down from the individual level to the gene level. You aren't necessarily selfish, but your genes are. They metaphorically "want" to propagate (not because they have a consciousness, but because they evolved that way). For example, if you are homosexual, you might not pass on your genes directly to your children. But your heterosexual sibling shares about 50% of your genes, and their children would each have 25% of your genes. You and your sibling can concentrate all your resources into helping fewer children grow, thus propagating your genes indirectly. >
  
  I disagree with the evolutionary argument, as evolution is not done on purpose most of the time. We might have had those instincts to begin with, we just happened to survive because of other reasons, not because that was the INTENT. >
  
  This became a thing with Ayn Rand objectivism. That philosophy says that altruism is evil. One should always pursue personal gain. It was hard for them to accept the inevitable label of being selfish so they relabeled altruism as it’s own brand of selfishness by saying that the reason people were altruistic was only for self pleasure.
  In the end anything you decide to do is for your own benefit by definition of being a human with brain chemistry. It’s a bunch of self indulgent nonsense. By their definition Altruism is impossible by definition. That way they can shed the label of selfish by saying “everyone is selfish so what of it?”
  In the end it’s good for society for people to think about and care for others. It’s ok for people to feel good about doing that. >
  
  altruism is impossible >
  
  Why do you say that? How do you define altruism? >
  
  Check out The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, he lays it out extraordinarily well. >
  
  Being selfish is not a bad thing in itself. >
  
  The word has "self" in it, though. What are emotions if not ourselves?
  I don't think the word "selfish" should be negative. People are motivated through selfish reasons because it involves themselves. Being selfish is perfectly normal, and you owe some selfishness to yourself. If someone is -only- selfish, that's bad. >
  
  The only truly "selfless" act is one done instantly without thought about whatever gratitude you may receive back.  Weather if it's from others or internally. >
  
  I disagree, as gratitude itself is felt because you believe in a moral reality greater than yourself. It's a logical, moral emotion, not the same as pleasure from food or something of the like. Plus, even if you think about it, it doesn't mean that's WHY you're doing it. >
  
  What if the, "good," thing you do for others—which believe is moral—is, in reality, terribly harmful for the people you believe you're helping?
  If your actions make you feel good because they conform to a subjective moral belief that exists only in your head, how is that not selfish?
  For something not to be selfish, it must be mutually beneficial, or selfless.  When you do something to another person which you believe is for their own benefit, when it isn't, it is neither mutually beneficial, or selfless.  In those cases, the only purpose of your action is to make yourself feel good about something, which is selfishness. >
  
  Counter: Doing something because it makes you happy isn't in itself selfless, even if it helps other people. >
  
  I never said it was. I said that that was not always the reason for people's actions. >
  
  Well yeah, sometimes I do things without thinking about the repercussions. If it turns out to be good then it was unexpected and I suppose therefore it was not self motivated for gratification. >
  
  Who says selfishness is always negative? Like taking time for yourself to recharge your physical and mental health rather than always going out and doing things for people and not one thing for yourself is rather unhealthy.
  It’s a selfish act, but one most people will agree is nothing wrong. >
  
  The concept of Altruism, a mutually beneficial engagement, is not a sign of "selfishness" within your construct.
  Altruism is inherently "selfish", however, in that the goal is mutually-assured ascension/growth/progression/success - also evolution!
  One receiving serotonin for helping another is selfish. It cuts both ways, and more! >
  
  
  Altruism is inherently "selfish", however, in that the goal is 
  mutually-assured ascension/growth/progression/success - also evolution!
  
  The goal? Evolution isn't sentient, it isn't conscious, right?  So how can it have goals? Or is it OUR goal? After all, if someone saves another person's life, and then after, some random person gives them a million dollars for that, that doesn't make the act selfish. So why would receiving serotonin qualify? You would need to prove that the person had the goal of receiving serotonin as their motive >
  
  Not necessarily - only that their actions were driven by the desire to feel good. Also, you're taking my usage of the word evolution a bit too literally. I do not mean the actual concept of evolution of a species. >
  
  I think you're confusing 'selfish' with not being 'selfless'.
  It's not selfless to do something good and feel happy about it because you did derive pleasure from it.
  That's not the same thing as being 'selfish'. >
  
  I think there is a spectrum between selfless and selfish. And enjoying the a good deed is something that falls on the spectrum.
  However, I see r/changemyview a pseudo-debate sub, and often for the purpose of debates, each side need to argue for the ends of the spectrum. This doesn’t necessarily mean people don’t see nuance, it’s just a characteristic of debates. >
  
  How could something even be good if it didn't benefit you? >
  
  Well this comes down to consequentialism vs deontology. According to consequentialism only what you do matters, but deontology refers to how the intentions of your actions matter. As a consequentialist, it wouldn’t matter if you are happy from a good act as long as the act is good, but as a deontologist, if your intention to do good was for your own pleasure, then it can be seen as selfish. Neither view is necessarily wrong or better than the other. They are just looking at two sides of the same coin. Buut with many philosophies, especially ethics, it’s often less universal, and more situational. For example, sometimes consequentialism is all you need because with something like volunteering, that is tangible good and your self-interested intentions will most likely not harm anyone. On the other hand, if you are being kind and nice to a friend to make yourself happy, and they find out, they will feel like they were used. >
  
  Something can be selfish and be moral. Capitalism is founded on the idea. I work for someone only because they pay me,  and they pay me only because I work for them. We are both being selfish, but neither of us are being immoral.
  I see my boyfriend on the couch without a blanket, and I cover him up because I love him. We trade warm fuzziness on a daily basis. >
  
  This seems to assume a mutually exclusive binary. We can hold multiple truths, and actions we take can have multiple simultaneous meanings and impacts.
  You can do an altruistic act that is selfless and also feel good about it because you did it, which is for you and you alone (read: selfish). 
  Are you questioning the action, the feeling, or the motive? >
  
  I counter your argument with this question, whoever decided to be selfish was a bad trait to begin with? 
  If everyone was selfless this world would be a miserable place. I believe selfishness can be a very good thing. 
  If I want to out to volunteer today and feel good about myself after I'm done, what is wrong with that? I was selfish and it benefited people!  
  Having re-read your statement though, I guess you didn't say the person *intended* to do something good, just that they became happy from doing something, which is just biology I suppose. >
  
  It depends on the intent. If you did it only to make yourself happy, or for example brag or virtue signal to others then imo it’s still selfish. I’ve seen this before in narcissistic people. >
  
  I agree. While selfishness is often a thing that instinctually guides humans, humans are also programmed to want to help fellow humans.
  We are social creatures, so of course we want to help our whole community advance for the sake of mankind. We have developed a bit beyond pure selfishness driving us. It is the intention behind an action that makes something selfish or otherwise. The more people we help, the better we believe our society will run. Maybe that’s why our brain rewards us in the very first place? I don’t think it’s selfish or bad to make someone happy. Even if we receive a dose of dopamine, that’s merely a nice side affect. It’s not the main reason we ventured to help someone out. >
  
  Phoebe Buffay agrees with you. Joey Tribbiani disagrees with you >
  
  I think most people toss out this accusation when someone does good but gains much more than happy feelings (clout, advertising, etc) and likely would not have done the act in the absence of those rewards. >
  
  Doing something for personal gain counts as selfish.
  Doing something for enjoyment counts as personal gain.
  Therefore, doing something for enjoyment is selfish.
  This technicality is how protestantism gained traction. >
  
  That does not mean that everything that causes enjoyment is done for enjoyment. >
  
  And there you have why the protestants are wrong. >
  
  So you don't disagree with me? >
  
  No, I'm just explaining the logic behind it. >
  
  Oh, thanks. But also, we probably shouldn't even be doing this, because top-level comments technically aren't allowed not to disagree with the OP. >
  
  There is more happiness in giving than receiving when love is involved.
  One aspect of love is looking out for the needs of others, sometimes to the exclusion of your own.
  Expressing love feels good. There's nothing at all wrong with that. >
  
  In those cases where such an act was done for the purpose of self-gratification, then it was clearly selfish.
  Your view is only true if incidental and non-expected/unintended happiness results. >
  
  I think you should be asking what it means to be happy and why we chase that. Would you do something good if you know it made you sick? >
  
  I don't necessarily disagree with your title, but: 
  
  Yes, we feel happy when we do something good, but we feel it for a conscious, semi-logical reason: that is, our ethical reasoning. Since we reason our moral worldview, we are happy when it is met
  
  How is it not selfish to consciously and deliberately (want to) change the world in accordance with your own personal morals, which would be a clear personal gain? >
  
  Exactly now i love midget porn and just because i get all greasy and naked jerking off to that shit does not make it inherently racist or whatever the fuck that were talking about i honestly fucking forgot what your hole opinion was but midget porn is fucking good >
  
  Finally a good fucking comment