Is this exploiting homeless people?

[Tgo01]

I've seen several news stories recently featuring a Youtube video of someone taping themselves going around giving money/clothes/shoes to homeless people, like the following:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G65z8p1YNhw

Granted I didn't find this one via a news story but still. It's great that these people are helping out homeless but to purposefully set out to tape yourself giving money away to homeless people just seems like you're using them. The video I link to for example has almost 5 million views, he probably made more money from this one video than he actually gave away to homeless people in the video; not to mention all of the views this video drew to his other videos.

Am I just being an ass here? Should I start taping all of my good deeds and rake in the cash?

[Tisket]

I suppose if taping your good deeds led other to follow your example and perform their own good deeds then, yes, tape away.

[Tisket]

And I'm fairly certain the homeless folks who benefit don't feel exploited.

[Tgo01]

I suppose if taping your good deeds led other to follow your example and perform their own good deeds then, yes, tape away.

I shall do it!

[Tisket]

Masturbation doesn't count as a good deed. Just a FYI.

[Tgo01]

Masturbation doesn't count as a good deed. Just a FYI.

:(

[Tisket]

haha

[waywardgs]

Just a mediocre deed.

[Warriorbird]

Less so than the people who trick them or beat them up and film it.

[Dwaar]

I wonder why there was such support for the above mentioned... but Bum Fights was universally condemned. Gooooooo Bum Fights!

[Warriorbird]

I wonder why there was such support for the above mentioned... but Bum Fights was universally condemned. Gooooooo Bum Fights!

Eh. Those guys also made millions.

[Parkbandit]

Masturbation doesn't count as a good deed. Just a FYI.

What if he were to masturbate the homeless dude? And maybe take the facial to show his appreciation?

What then?

[Parkbandit]

Personally.. if you have to do a good deed and then "brag" about it by posting the video of you doing the good deed.. you probably are a selfish person and the only reason you are doing it is to get more "likes" or "favorites" or "followers" or something for yourself.

[Methais]

If he was legit and not looking for attention/views/ROI he'd do all this anonymously.

That said, even if it's exploiting homeless people, they're still getting something out of it. But still, if there was no camera, he probably wouldn't be doing it in the first place, which still makes him a douchebasket.

[Ker_Thwap]

Yes, he's exploiting homelessness. It's self masterbatory stupidity. Tossing random addicts cash is not generally helpful. Yes, yes, they're not all addicts, but he didn't take the time to check on that, did he?

[Merll]

just remember no good deed goes unpunished.

[waywardgs]

If this guy figured out a way to make money by giving money to homeless people, more power to him.

[Tisket]

What if he were to masturbate the homeless dude? And maybe take the facial to show his appreciation?

What then?

If you'd been taping my face as I read this post my facial expression would have been a weird mix of "lol" and "ewwww."

[Ker_Thwap]

If you'd been taping my face as I read this post my facial expression would have been a weird mix of "lol" and "ewwww."

I thought at first you spelled tapping incorrectly.

[Parkbandit]

I thought at first you spelled tapping incorrectly.

Haha, me too.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m266e2vvkU1rt8f13o1_500.gif

[Thondalar]

Everything we do is selfish, whether we realize it or not.

Regardless, I don't see it as "exploiting" the homeless, because they could give a fuck either way. $100 is booze for a week or two, and maybe some real cigarettes. That may sound a bit jaded, but I've actually spent quite a bit of time with the homeless here in Lakeland at Lighthouse ministries...unless we somehow managed to find every "fell-through-the-cracks" mental patient that self-medicates with booze AND every person lacking in any amount of self-motivation to better their lives right here in Lakeland...I'm going to assume my experiences are pretty close to the national average.

[Warriorbird]

Everything we do is selfish, whether we realize it or not.

That is certainly one philosophy.


Regardless, I don't see it as "exploiting" the homeless, because they could give a fuck either way. $100 is booze for a week or two, and maybe some real cigarettes. That may sound a bit jaded, but I've actually spent quite a bit of time with the homeless here in Lakeland at Lighthouse ministries...unless we somehow managed to find every "fell-through-the-cracks" mental patient that self-medicates with booze AND every person lacking in any amount of self-motivation to better their lives right here in Lakeland...I'm going to assume my experiences are pretty close to the national average.

On the rest I tend to agree with you though. After hearing about my Dad's experiences working with the homeless I've only ever donated clothing and food to them. If they reject that they're clearly not in need of my largess. Cash isn't going to end the world but it is likely going to go in specific directions.

[Ker_Thwap]

There's nothing wrong with a little selfishness. I volunteer, because it makes me feel good about myself to know that I'm helping someone who can't help themselves. Plus, I get to brag and tell chicks that I volunteer, chicks dig volunteers. (not all that much apparently)

Exploitation, on the other hand, isn't cool. This guy has the selfish part down in that he feels good or is making money, or whatever, but he's likely doing more harm than good by handing cash to addicts. That's where it rises to exploitation.

[Jarvan]

Well, if he made money off filming himself giving stuff to homeless, and didn't get permission from the homeless to appear in his video (or let them know he was doing it, not sure) then I would say that it is exploitation. He didn't say he was paying these people 100 bucks to appear in his video, he was just giving them money.

So.. giving money to homeless and making bank off it is not exploitation... but giving money to college girls to take off their shirts and making bank off it is? (in the general exploitation of women sense)

Makes total sense.

[Latrinsorm]

Everything we do is selfish, whether we realize it or not.

Regardless, I don't see it as "exploiting" the homeless, because they could give a fuck either way. $100 is booze for a week or two, and maybe some real cigarettes. That may sound a bit jaded, but I've actually spent quite a bit of time with the homeless here in Lakeland at Lighthouse ministries...unless we somehow managed to find every "fell-through-the-cracks" mental patient that self-medicates with booze AND every person lacking in any amount of self-motivation to better their lives right here in Lakeland...I'm going to assume my experiences are pretty close to the national average.You say you want to identify and track people? Can I interest you in some pan-national surveillance?

[Thondalar]

There's nothing wrong with a little selfishness. I volunteer, because it makes me feel good about myself to know that I'm helping someone who can't help themselves. Plus, I get to brag and tell chicks that I volunteer, chicks dig volunteers. (not all that much apparently)

Well, as WB pointed out, that is a certain philosophy...my posit that everything is ultimately selfish whether we know it or not is a hard pill to swallow. Most would like to believe that their "charity" is altruistic...to that I would say a certain amount of self-reflection would be in order.

It really boils down to the basics of philosophy...why do we do the things that we do? We wash laundry because we want to have clean clothes...we go to work because we want to have a paycheck. We want clean clothes because we don't want people to think we're slobs...we get a paycheck to pay our bills.

A good percentage of people love their job...they do what they do because it's something they like doing that they also just happened to get paid for doing. How many of them would still do that job if it suddenly didn't pay the bills? That's selfish...you want your bills paid. It's a bonus that you may have found a way into doing something you liked doing, that also paid the bills. It's selfish that you want your clothes to be clean and smell good so you don't offend others.

While we're paying our bills and sitting in clean clothes, we see a commercial for the SPCA...down-trodden dogs in cages, abused horses...we want to help them! Those poor creatures...certainly giving some money to an organization that helps these poor animals is noble and selfless, right?

You send a check off post-haste....and instantly feel better about yourself. Guess what...that's selfish as fuck. Here's where the philosophy kicks in...did you respond to a trigger, to make yourself feel better, or did you come to the conclusion completely on your own that you needed to help these animals? Naturally, in this example, you responded to a trigger...so what about people who give that have never seen an SPCA commercial? Surely those are completely selfless?

Well, no...the trigger came in some other fashion. Otherwise, you'd never know a problem existed, and would never have a reason to give. It's not a popular view because it gets twisted to somehow mean people don't care...it's quite the opposite, in reality. It's just a recognition of human nature...you still have free will to give a shit or not.


Exploitation, on the other hand, isn't cool. This guy has the selfish part down in that he feels good or is making money, or whatever, but he's likely doing more harm than good by handing cash to addicts. That's where it rises to exploitation.

Again, yes and no...but it's semantics at this point. Technically he's using these people for personal gain, no matter how you cut it, but I'm not convinced that was fully his intention in the beginning...I firmly believe it's just another misguided do-gooder that needs to grow up.

[Methais]

Well, if he made money off filming himself giving stuff to homeless, and didn't get permission from the homeless to appear in his video (or let them know he was doing it, not sure) then I would say that it is exploitation. He didn't say he was paying these people 100 bucks to appear in his video, he was just giving them money.

So.. giving money to homeless and making bank off it is not exploitation... but giving money to college girls to take off their shirts and making bank off it is? (in the general exploitation of women sense)

Makes total sense.

The difference is everyone wants to see naked college sluts, and college sluts don't care as long as they're getting attention.

But mostly because titties.

[Methais]

Well, as WB pointed out, that is a certain philosophy...my posit that everything is ultimately selfish whether we know it or not is a hard pill to swallow. Most would like to believe that their "charity" is altruistic...to that I would say a certain amount of self-reflection would be in order.

It really boils down to the basics of philosophy...why do we do the things that we do? We wash laundry because we want to have clean clothes...we go to work because we want to have a paycheck. We want clean clothes because we don't want people to think we're slobs...we get a paycheck to pay our bills.

A good percentage of people love their job...they do what they do because it's something they like doing that they also just happened to get paid for doing. How many of them would still do that job if it suddenly didn't pay the bills? That's selfish...you want your bills paid. It's a bonus that you may have found a way into doing something you liked doing, that also paid the bills. It's selfish that you want your clothes to be clean and smell good so you don't offend others.

While we're paying our bills and sitting in clean clothes, we see a commercial for the SPCA...down-trodden dogs in cages, abused horses...we want to help them! Those poor creatures...certainly giving some money to an organization that helps these poor animals is noble and selfless, right?

You send a check off post-haste....and instantly feel better about yourself. Guess what...that's selfish as fuck. Here's where the philosophy kicks in...did you respond to a trigger, to make yourself feel better, or did you come to the conclusion completely on your own that you needed to help these animals? Naturally, in this example, you responded to a trigger...so what about people who give that have never seen an SPCA commercial? Surely those are completely selfless?

Well, no...the trigger came in some other fashion. Otherwise, you'd never know a problem existed, and would never have a reason to give. It's not a popular view because it gets twisted to somehow mean people don't care...it's quite the opposite, in reality. It's just a recognition of human nature...you still have free will to give a shit or not.



Again, yes and no...but it's semantics at this point. Technically he's using these people for personal gain, no matter how you cut it, but I'm not convinced that was fully his intention in the beginning...I firmly believe it's just another misguided do-gooder that needs to grow up.

What about running into the street to push someone out of the way of a bus that's about to run over them, knowing that you're going to die or at least get seriously fucked up permanently and be shitting into a bag for the rest of your life and being a miserable fuck in just about every possible way? Can you semantics your way into that being a selfish act?

[Thondalar]

What about running into the street to push someone out of the way of a bus that's about to run over them, knowing that you're going to die or at least get seriously fucked up permanently and be shitting into a bag for the rest of your life and being a miserable fuck in just about every possible way? Can you semantics your way into that being a selfish act?

Dismissing the fact that that's a scenario that, at best, would only affect about 1 in a billion of us (unless you're in India, I suppose), yes, because at that point you made the decision that you're going to be a hero.

This is the conundrum...if you do it, you did it to be a hero, and it's selfish...if you don't do it, you didn't do it for self-preservation, and it's selfish...

The disconnect here is we've been taught, from birth, that being selfish is a bad thing...but we've only been taught one side of it. I teach my kids to share their toys with other kids...but I don't tell them to not be selfish. I teach them that it's selfish either way, but there is a good and a bad side to it. Wouldn't you rather feel good about yourself? It's a hard philosophical understanding based in pure logic...whether you take it for yourself or you give to others, it's selfish. If you take it for yourself, that's selfish because you're taking it for yourself...if you give it to others, that's selfish because it makes you feel good. Selfish isn't necessarily a bad thing...it's the end result of any scenario. The question is, are you doing something good for others? Are you improving the situation of yourself and others?

[Ker_Thwap]

I think your every action is selfish idea is indeed semantics based. By definition selfish includes a lack of consideration for others. I'll agree that all our actions are self interest based. (Well, unless you have self loathing issues.)

You can certainly have self interest and consideration for others, in this case, it's stretching the definition of selfish, and there are better words to describe this behavior.

[Thondalar]

I think your every action is selfish idea is indeed semantics based. By definition selfish includes a lack of consideration for others. I'll agree that all our actions are self interest based. (Well, unless you have self loathing issues.)

You can certainly have self interest and consideration for others, in this case, it's stretching the definition of selfish, and there are better words to describe this behavior.

This interpretation is mostly based in Objectivism, and you're right, it is semantics to a degree...but hell, philosophy is just gussied-up semantics.

The point is, selfish and self-interest are, ultimately, the same thing...we have a bad connotation for the word selfish because we've been taught to not be selfish, without really understanding what that word means.

Objectivism gets a lot of bad press because people make a snap judgement that it supports "selfishness", and "selfishness" is a bad thing...in reality, it states that everything you do is, by it's nature, automatically selfish, and you have a choice to do right or wrong regardless of "selfishness".

[Ker_Thwap]

It's not a bad connotation it's a bad denotation, it's designed to call attention to the bad aspect of a choice. Not all is hedonism, I'm kind of a fan of utilitarianism, and the greatest good being what serves society. Ones intentions matter, and the involvement of others in the equation matters.

[Warriorbird]

It's certainly a viewpoint. A fair portion of society disagrees with it (which is why Objectivists often have trouble with the religious or the selfless and try to put other labels on them) but it is a viewpoint.

[Thondalar]

It's not a bad connotation it's a bad denotation, it's designed to call attention to the bad aspect of a choice. Not all is hedonism, I'm kind of a fan of utilitarianism, and the greatest good being what serves society. Ones intentions matter, and the involvement of others in the equation matters.

This is very true...unfortunately, most people automatically associate selfishness with hedonism, which is why it has a bad rap.

The reality is, they are two completely separate things. Think about it...just like the examples that have already been laid out, depending on the context both good and bad deeds could be labeled "selfish".

The point there is that the "self" is above such monickers...the "self" can be good or evil, and that is the root of existence. Selfishness is variable; it can be either good or evil depending on the context. If you accept the fact that everything is selfish, you remove a variable...suddenly, societal norms and influences are no longer part of the equation.

You can focus on just doing either right or wrong.

[Thondalar]

It's certainly a viewpoint. A fair portion of society disagrees with it (which is why Objectivists often have trouble with the religious or the selfless and try to put other labels on them) but it is a viewpoint.

I find this to be a misunderstanding on the part of the person trying to understand Objectivism. See above.

[Jarvan]

You can argue every action is selfish, but a REALLY good debater could argue every action is selfless.

It depends how you want to look at the world. People that look at someone that donates a kidney to someone they don't know for no recognition or money as being selfish... I kinda think they are fucked up in the head.

[JackWhisper]

I once has to be on the FOR side of Cancer in a high school debate event.

Everyone laughed and said I'd crash and burn.

Guy who was AGAINST cancer showed how many millions of tragic deaths had been caused by this ravaging disease.

I went into a lengthy explanation of how many tens of millions of people had been saved by the research for the cure for cancer finding cures for other diseases, that had been found purely because of their ongoing research of cancer.

Nailed it! Debating Woo!

[Thondalar]

You can argue every action is selfish, but a REALLY good debater could argue every action is selfless.

It depends how you want to look at the world. People that look at someone that donates a kidney to someone they don't know for no recognition or money as being selfish... I kinda think they are fucked up in the head.

The thing is, nobody wants to argue for the purpose of arguing...excuse me for waxing Master Po here, but it really has jack shit to do with how you look at the world.

The world exists, has existed, and will exist, regardless of your presence...certain men(people) hold, have held, and will hold, the capacity to "change" this world as it relates to other people...

If you look at a sea lion, then close your eyes and imagine him a seal....you would probably have a pretty fine image of a seal in your head. This does not change the sea lion.

Reality exists despite the machinations of men(people)...we can look at the world however we want, and this is the superficial "skin" of philosophy...however we look at the World doesn't change the world. A rock, lying at the bottom of a stream, is a rock whether I believe it is or not. I can think about that rock, and imagine that rock is a dinosaur, or a spaceship...depending on what you believe, these thoughts might have meaning...but after my soliloquy is done, it's still a rock.

This is really the core of it...stop the bullshit.

Stop the "what if" and "maybe this" and "how about"...there simply does not exist a selfless act. It's impossible, not because human beings are callous and evil by their nature, but because we're loving and sympathetic by our nature. We can't help but feel good about doing a good deed, and this very natural reaction means there is no act that is selfless. This doesn't make it a bad thing...you only assume it's a bad thing because you've been taught it's a bad thing your entire life by people who, like you, don't understand the reality of their own existence. Helping people is a wonderfully selfish act.

[Warriorbird]

The thing is, nobody wants to argue for the purpose of arguing...excuse me for waxing Master Po here, but it really has jack shit to do with how you look at the world.

The world exists, has existed, and will exist, regardless of your presence...certain men(people) hold, have held, and will hold, the capacity to "change" this world as it relates to other people...

If you look at a sea lion, then close your eyes and imagine him a seal....you would probably have a pretty fine image of a seal in your head. This does not change the sea lion.

Reality exists despite the machinations of men(people)...we can look at the world however we want, and this is the superficial "skin" of philosophy...however we look at the World doesn't change the world. A rock, lying at the bottom of a stream, is a rock whether I believe it is or not. I can think about that rock, and imagine that rock is a dinosaur, or a spaceship...depending on what you believe, these thoughts might have meaning...but after my soliloquy is done, it's still a rock.

This is really the core of it...stop the bullshit.

Stop the "what if" and "maybe this" and "how about"...there simply does not exist a selfless act. It's impossible, not because human beings are callous and evil by their nature, but because we're loving and sympathetic by our nature. We can't help but feel good about doing a good deed, and this very natural reaction means there is no act that is selfless. This doesn't make it a bad thing...you only assume it's a bad thing because you've been taught it's a bad thing your entire life by people who, like you, don't understand the reality of their own existence. Helping people is a wonderfully selfish act.

You are aware that this is the sort of thing Latrin would enjoy debating at parties?

[JackWhisper]

Would he be tipping homeless people as they walk by, pining for the food and alcohol? If so, I am there with a camera phone.

[Thondalar]

You are aware that this is the sort of thing Latrin would enjoy debating at parties?

Yep. But then again, he enjoys debating anything, so.

[Astray]

Are they being beaten up after they take the money? If not, I'm willing to say this is a good deed. A bit of "look at how great I am, do you see me giving this homeless guy money, come on, praise me for it" going on but whatever.

[Tenlaar]

Stop the "what if" and "maybe this" and "how about"...there simply does not exist a selfless act.

Are you aware that the word selfless means being concerned more with the needs of others than your own, or having little concern for oneself? Having absolutely no concern for yourself is not a requirement of something being selfless. Your entire philosophy is based off of an incorrect definition.

[Jarvan]

Are you aware that the word selfless means being concerned more with the needs of others than your own, or having little concern for oneself? Having absolutely no concern for yourself is not a requirement of something being selfless. Your entire philosophy is based off of an incorrect definition.

His entire philosophy is based off stupid thinking.

Then again, it does mean I can call each and every one of you a selfish asshole, and be correct.

[Latrinsorm]

The thing is, nobody wants to argue for the purpose of arguing...excuse me for waxing Master Po here, but it really has jack shit to do with how you look at the world.

The world exists, has existed, and will exist, regardless of your presence...certain men(people) hold, have held, and will hold, the capacity to "change" this world as it relates to other people...

If you look at a sea lion, then close your eyes and imagine him a seal....you would probably have a pretty fine image of a seal in your head. This does not change the sea lion.

Reality exists despite the machinations of men(people)...we can look at the world however we want, and this is the superficial "skin" of philosophy...however we look at the World doesn't change the world. A rock, lying at the bottom of a stream, is a rock whether I believe it is or not. I can think about that rock, and imagine that rock is a dinosaur, or a spaceship...depending on what you believe, these thoughts might have meaning...but after my soliloquy is done, it's still a rock.

This is really the core of it...stop the bullshit.

Stop the "what if" and "maybe this" and "how about"...there simply does not exist a selfless act. It's impossible, not because human beings are callous and evil by their nature, but because we're loving and sympathetic by our nature. We can't help but feel good about doing a good deed, and this very natural reaction means there is no act that is selfless. This doesn't make it a bad thing...you only assume it's a bad thing because you've been taught it's a bad thing your entire life by people who, like you, don't understand the reality of their own existence. Helping people is a wonderfully selfish act.Let us assume for the sake of argument that people can have a selfish motive for every act. Does it necessarily follow that people do have a selfish motive for every act?

By analogy, it is always a possibility that one person murders another for money. It does not follow that every such person is guilty of murder for hire: the act is not evidence of any particular motive.
Well, as WB pointed out, that is a certain philosophy...my posit that everything is ultimately selfish whether we know it or not is a hard pill to swallow. Most would like to believe that their "charity" is altruistic...to that I would say a certain amount of self-reflection would be in order.Ah, but isn't your philosophy just as comforting to you? You enshrine the ego as the absolute and only cause for your acts: put another way, there is a never a case where you are not in control of your self. What if the fact is that our ego is, for lack of a better word, egotistical? That we not only see a conscious cause where none exists, but that we see our conscious cause where none exists?

It is deeply comforting to believe that we are the captains of our ships, the masters of our domains, the Kenyan-born Presidents of our United Stateses. But the briefest examination of the field of mental health reveals it to be a lie.

[Thondalar]

Let us assume for the sake of argument that people can have a selfish motive for every act. Does it necessarily follow that people do have a selfish motive for every act?

Unless they're completely incapable of empathy or emotion, yes.


By analogy, it is always a possibility that one person murders another for money. It does not follow that every such person is guilty of murder for hire: the act is not evidence of any particular motive.

No "particular" motive doesn't mean no motive at all. Name me one action that doesn't have a motive.


Ah, but isn't your philosophy just as comforting to you? You enshrine the ego as the absolute and only cause for your acts: put another way, there is a never a case where you are not in control of your self. What if the fact is that our ego is, for lack of a better word, egotistical? That we not only see a conscious cause where none exists, but that we see our conscious cause where none exists?

It exists because we see it. It's neither comforting nor discomforting to me, it's just the way things are.


It is deeply comforting to believe that we are the captains of our ships, the masters of our domains, the Kenyan-born Presidents of our United Stateses. But the briefest examination of the field of mental health reveals it to be a lie.

I don't have a mental illness that prevents cognitive function, so I remain the captain of this ship.

[Thondalar]

Are you aware that the word selfless means being concerned more with the needs of others than your own, or having little concern for oneself? Having absolutely no concern for yourself is not a requirement of something being selfless. Your entire philosophy is based off of an incorrect definition.

What have I said that would violate the definition of the word? I don't recall saying you had to have absolutely no concern for yourself. We're talking about motivations behind actions, not really the actions themselves.

[Latrinsorm]

Unless they're completely incapable of empathy or emotion, yes.This doesn't answer the question. You are conflating two distinct thought processes:
1. If I do this, I will feel good.
2. I do this because I will feel good.
We can agree on the first without being logically compelled to the second. By the way, this is the fundamental flaw of all egotisms, so don't feel bad about falling into it.
No "particular" motive doesn't mean no motive at all. Name me one action that doesn't have a motive.I would say the overwhelming majority of acts have no motive, but are instead the outcome of training primarily and whim at a distant second. I'd put decision making at no higher than 5%.
It exists because we see it. It's neither comforting nor discomforting to me, it's just the way things are.Yikes! People don't even like "I think therefore I am", you want to posit "I think therefore you are"? Many people would swear they saw Zeus, but you do not consider that proof of his existence. Or do you?
I don't have a mental illness that prevents cognitive function, so I remain the captain of this ship.If our discussion on medicinal marijuana should have taught you anything, it's that that distinction is in no way binary.

[Tgo01]

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those who understand binary, and Latrin.

[Latrinsorm]

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those who understand binary, and Latrin.Take it easy, buddy, I don't want to mess with no reefer addicts.

[Tgo01]

Take it easy, buddy, I don't want to mess with no reefer addicts.

You think psychosis is contagious now?

[Latrinsorm]

You think psychosis is contagious now?Look, just take it!!!

(I threw my wallet at the screen.) (Not racist, because you're white.)

[Methais]

You think psychosis is contagious now?

EVER HEAR OF SECOND HAND SMOKE?!?!?!?!?

[Tenlaar]

What have I said that would violate the definition of the word?


We can't help but feel good about doing a good deed, and this very natural reaction means there is no act that is selfless.

Feeling good does not mean that something cannot be selfless, so long as feeling good about oneself was not the primary motivating factor. You posit that somebody donating a kidney to saved a loved one's life cannot be selfless simply because the person feels good about it, regardless of how much more important saving the life is to them.

You said before to stop using "what ifs" but these kinds of situations are not simply hypotheticals.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/14/article-2604234-1D1BD1DF00000578-256_634x452.jpg
That is a picture of a 71 year old man who was hit by a truck at an intersection while riding on the back of a scooter that his son was driving. Rather than make any effort to save himself, he instead spent the last seconds of his life frantically pushing his son away from the wheels even as the truck was rolling over him. How does your "philosophy" explain this? Do you really believe that in the span of (literally) less than five seconds this man weighed his options and made a decision to die as a hero out of a selfish desire for glory?

[Latrinsorm]

I thought up, forgot, and remembered the perfect counter-argument to Thondalar's position and before the sinusoid takes it away again I wanted to post it:

All human acts have the consequence of self-gratification.
Therefore, all human acts have the intent of self-gratification.
We call acts with the intent of self-gratification "selfish" (outside of coercion or provocation).
Therefore, all humans are selfish.

All X acts have the consequence of Y.
Therefore, all X acts have the intent of Y.
We call acts with the intent of Y "Z".
Therefore, all X are Z.

All birthing acts have the consequence of the child dying (eventually).
Therefore, all birthing acts have the intent of the child dying.
We call acts with the intent of another person dying "murder" (outside of coercion or provocation).
Therefore, all people who give birth are murderers.

.

Argument #3 is absurd, therefore the form of the argument (#2) is flawed, therefore the argument #1 does not hold.

Logic.