Is there such thing as a 100% selfless act?

funny you should say that. I just posted about this in another thread (random act of kindness).

I think yes. Those that don't bring you any pleasure from the persons gratitude (such as anonymous kind act) or those that even bring you extra problems or take up a lot of your energy/resources. Or those ultimate ones that take your life (so you cannot get off on how much good you did for someone you mathertheresa you).

for me  giving money to wikipedia is something I consider selfless. Yeah they do send me a thank you note but its generic and I don't really get any pleasure from reading it. And I don't really see any benefit from giving the money to them (other than considering they survive on donations so the fact they still exist could be said is the benefit but its very intangible), and I hate "giving money away".  So how about that?

also joey and phoebe had it right

yes. They debated this very topic there.

Its a good show. I know it is disliked by many, for some reason, but to me it was (along with Seinfeld or Frasier for example) one of the few good ones that you can still watch today and you forgive them for what they are wearing and their hairstyles, because the content is still valid, funny and smart. I have great admiration for long running sitcoms like that. 

that there can be some that are truly selfless. When as a result of the deed you yourself don't feel any joy (or other feelings you may crave). for various reasons but usually because of the intense personal sacrifice you had to make in order to do it.  in the show one character offered to carry someone elses babies, even though giving them up after the 9 months was extremely hard/painful for her.

Or the Ultimate one - like Clooney in Gravity or Val Kilmer in Red Planet. Or the finale of Homeland season 6.

well then how about Jesus? I dont think he wanted to go on the cross and die. I even remember him pleading not to have to go. Similarly maybe quin wanted to help carrie but maybe at the same time he didnt want to die, he chose to do something he really didnt want to do because he saw a greater value would arise out of it. And look, we are back to Jesus…

I would say that in the ultimate sacrifices the greater value is RECOGNIZED, and not really desired. You can recognize something is important yet have no personal interest (or gain) in doing it. And not only becacause you wont be around to experience the aftermath. But you do it because you see the benefit to other as greater than the damage to you by doing it. definition of selfless is: "concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own" - to me both Jesus and Quinn have committed selfless acts. They were concerned more with the needs of others than with their own. And at least in case of Jesus we know he Really didn't want to go up there and get nailed to the crossed. In the end he simply recognized the need of others. But even from his behaviour and words on the cross you can deduce he was totally not into it. For his act to not be selfless he would have had to get some of his own needs met by it. He didnt. Unless you count "pleasing daddy" as one of his needs. :-)

true but I didnt say he had no needs and we are not talking about having needs. Having needs does not preclude the existence of a selfless acts. It would be if by committing the act you have those particular needs satisfied and THIS BENEFIT is the reason behind the act. You would have to make it about your needs being met (over some one else's). In this particular case ok lets say he did have a need for the salvation of humanity but by committing the act (of going to be crucified) and that was met by him on the cross. still the primary satisfaction went to the need of others (to get the salvation), which in my eyes rules over the degree to which he had his own needs satisfied. Also you can argue that if you are not around to enjoy the fact your needs were met, how could that count as having been met?

but lets turn away from Jesus. More simple scenario: I have a cupcake that I want to eat. I see you are very hungry and there is no other food. I will give you the cupcake (to make sure you don't pass out/die of hunger). I didn't want to give you the cupcake (trust me), I have no benefit from it and NONE of MY needs were met by giving you the cupcake. I simply chose to be selfless and prefer your needs over mine (and will forever hold a grudge as a result you can count on that). That doesn't mean I don't have any needs, but it means I chose to satisfy yours over mine. Not because satisfying your need would please me but because I saw you needed it more than me. Recognition of importance of something for someone else does not mean any of my needs were necessarily satisfied. Unless you broaden it to "my need for the world to prioritize actions by importance to their subjects" and say that was just met, but even then I would say that an element you cannot ignore is a joy (or absence of it) arising from the result. And only then (if that positive feeling is experienced) it would stop being a selfless act.

And just as Quinn wasn't around to feel any joy over what he did, I am not happy I now have no cupcake, believe you me! Therefore my giving the cupcake to you was a completely selfless act motivated by doing a simple comparison of the damage the giving up of the cupcake would do to me vs the benefit you would have from the cupcake. I chose your benefit over my loss. It simply means I am economical, not that I am not selfless. 

Not really, because even when you get nothing out of it, you still get the joy of having done something good for someone. But that's ok. Still, I think people who always do selfless acts are doing it for some internal reason, right? Is that too cynical? lol