True kindness seeks no reward...

That's a very good question. I think that the actions that are truly selfless are ones that are done impulsively.

The purest form of selfless acts are heroic acts done by ordinary people, in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and those in Law Enforcement and the Military. All of these people have done such deeds because they've felt they must do it.

It's not to avoid a bad conscience because who they see before them is another human being, though s/he be a stranger to them. At that point they rush into danger, at the risk of their lives, and when they've accomplished the deed they have another thing in common.

Neither of them felt like heroes.

They would commonly disclaim that they are because it is just something they had to do. As a result, they are uncomfortable being called that.

There's a bible verse that are often applied to them:

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
- John 15:13

And it is true.

IMPORTANT NOTE:
II should point out that Paramedics, as an official policy, cannot treat and pick up the wounded until the crime scene is secured.

There was a show, maybe before 2010, that drew hot criticism from the EMS community as well as law enforcement that showed Paramedics defying a law enforcement (LE) order not to rescue the wounded during an Active Shooter incident. They did it anyways and rescued the wounded, thus saving their lives.

While that is a show of heroic nobility, it is pure Hollywood. EMS units upon arrival including Paramedics, Firefighters, EMT's know that they CANNOT do that because they're not trained to move under fire, they're not trained to use weapons nor are they allowed to use weapons in their job, because it's not their job to do it. They're NOT LE. And most importantly, if they go down then there would be no other that can take their place.

The Police are trained in the use of First Aid, but they do not have the depth of medical training as the Paramedics do and most likely any other civilian. Besides this, they would yet be another victim the Police must rescue at the risk of their own lives.

With that said, they're just as willing to risk their lives to save another.

Acronyms
LE = Law Enforcement
EMS = Emergency Medical Service
EMT = Emegency Medical Technicians

No, every action or act has a reward on some level for the giver. This is essentially being pessimistic about human nature but even the act which is seemingly spontaneous.will give something back to the giver.

I'm not sure that's pessimistic. If "altruistic" acts contain a reward for the doer, I think that makes them even better, not worse. Perhaps one could consider them the best form of selfishness, a win-win.

I believe there are, and have been fortunate to see a few.

Sacrificing you own life for some one else’s

I'm going to sound like an edgelord here, but only if you suffer for it.

Yeah, we do things for others. But then those people are nice to you, they may return the favor, you'll get a kind of reward. Your reputation may also get a boost. And even if the person is an ungrateful jackass, and even if it doesn't help your reputation, you get that great positive feeling when you know you've done something good. And that's what we subconsciously chase after, even if we may deny it. That feeling. That happiness that benefits us. If there wasn't a gratifying feeling or any rewards for acting selflessly, no one would ever do it.

It's actually kind of liberating to know this. Everything you do, you do at least partially for yourself. So why bother pretending otherwise? (unless you want to make a good impression, in which case I wouldn't recommend telling just anyone that you're doing [thing] for the benefit you get.)

A philosopher I once spoke said that everything to do is in a certain way selfish, no exceptions.
Even when you would sacrifice yourself so somebody else may live. Why? Because you cannot burden yourself that somebody else died where you lived, so you do not want to feel that pain.
Goes a bit far, maybe, but I can't deny, she had a point.

I don't think that makes the person doing the good thing worse. They want to do the good thing, or don't want to do the evil thing, so good for them. They deserve a little reward of self esteem.

I had to read that one twice, before I got it... It was also not a statement about good and evil, it was rather a statement in how all people do have a certain point of selfishness in them. And being good because I want to be good, would in that sense mean that I can't stand being bad, so that I am doing it in a certain sense for myself. It also shows that things are not always as black-white as they sometimes seem.

Probably yes

Yes

Ontologically, no. For there to be an act, there has to be an actor.

Yes. If you bury a dead man who you didn't know, and there was no way you could be paid back, that is selfless to the umpteenth degree I feel. If you do something for a living person, you could always have a nag in the back of your mind that they kinda owe you. But a dead person cannot repay you.

It depends on the situation. Say someone jumps in front of a bullet to save thair friend, it would be selfless of they wanted to save a friends life, but selfish if they did it to end thair on suffering

Maybe, MAYBE there's a chance.
For example, if somebody gives themselves to help another person, without any reward or any concern about themselves in their mind. All they care about is to help that one person.
However, if you think about it, there may be something in your subconscious. Maybe they're subconsciously thinking about a reward, or as my friend Jerry said it, that they can't bear to see that person dying.
But then again, some people's subconscious may be pure. And if you think about it again, can you control your subconscious thoughts? No. So does it count? Maybe.
It really depends on how you see it, and what you define as "truly selfless"
But I've read a book once and it had something in it, a message that I didn't remember word for word, so I'm just going to say the main point:
"If good things were done only when people were truly selfless, then there will be next to no good things in the world."
I might have worded that wrong, but here's an example the book gave:
Someone builds a hospital, but only so his name could be on the hospital's. Yes, it's selfish, but think about the benefits. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of people could be helped by the building of that one hospital.
So if we have to wait for ourselves to be truly selfless before helping others, will we ever do a good deed to others?