>>33964
>Do you think altruism means absolute selflessness?
It means to benefit another at one's own expense. But this is simply not possible. You always exchange your resources for some manner of reward.
>The line of reasoning I'm seeing here is:
>There's a byproduct to helping others, therefore that is necessarily the helper's motivation
You're missing the problem outlined in the OP: if there is no motivation, there is no good deed.
>>33967
>You actually never had a person in your life you'd be willing to die for?
You did not read my post. I specifically talked about situations where you give up your life.
Simply put, do you know how parents tend to support and motivate their children to accomplish the things they themselves always wanted to accomplish? Giving up your life is something you do for the satisfaction of knowing that someone else will carry on in your stead, or remember you fondly, or even guarantee you an afterlife.
>If all actions were selfish, the word "selfish" in consequence wouldn't exist, because a word in nature defines a meaning to set it apart from everything else.
Just because we are incapable of something, does not mean we are incapable of imagining it. In fact, we routinely dream up figures which are impossibly better than ourselves in fiction, science, and religion.