I would be very interested on hearing arguments for and against the theory that everything we do is ‘selfish’ I appologise for my English as i am still learning. I have had this arguement many times with my friend and wish to explore further.
This word ‘Selfish’ has a negative conotation, but should it have? Is it bad and wrong to be selfish? Is it possible to be unselfish?
Thank you
Amilie xXx
Everything we do is purely subjective. hence it is impossible to be objective about anything. Altruism is unnatural,and the exceptional in the universe.
No, we are not always selfish, not all of us anyway, but close. The closest thing I can find to pure Love (which is unselfishness) is the love of a mother to her child. She will sacrifice her comfort and wellbeing and even her life for the child’s sake.
I’ll disagree with the venerable Nietzsche here. Check out this thread for my, and others, reasonings.
amilie,
Welcome!!! Your English is good. Yes, selfishness has a bad connotation, as it should. Self-directed activity is not always selfish. If Mother Theresa had not been fed, she could not have continued helping the many who were not fed. Simone Weil died of empathy for the soldiers–what a waste! Selfishness is manifested in ideas of one-upmanship, of I’m right and you’re wrong and of my appetites should mean more than your survival.
Altruism is an evolutionary trait. See Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene”.
Yeah, what we descibe as “selfish” here is usually described as “maximally rational” by most philosophers/historians/economists/scientists/anthropologists, etc.
And yes, probably half of the thinkers we’d refer to have the ‘negative’ or selfish view of human nature. They’d take the Hobbes-ian view that humanity is ultimately self-interested and only behaves because of the social contracts we create to get along.
Mind you, there’s the other half who believe that people are essentially good and selfless unless directed otherwise.
These people would point out flaws in both the social contract and evolutionary stances. They’d provide countless empirical examples of self-sacrifice and charity work, often without regognition or any other side-benefit.
They’d also tell the Dawkins fans (and I loved “The Selfish Gene”) that according to maximally rational principles, evolution would have ‘bred out’ these selfless traits.
Alternate,
I disagree. As I wrote in the other thread:
And here is something that Mucius wrote, one of the most sensible comments in the thread:
Extraordinarily good point!
I think the best quick answer is “no, we are not always selfish”.
In order to answer the question, we really need to settle on a definition of selfish. Here are the two best definitions that come to my mind:
I am selfish if all my actions are geared towards my maximal self-interest
I am selfish if all my actions are motivated purely by my own desires
I think 2) is the one that most people are using when they claim that we are purely selfish. After all, no matter who you are and what you do, your actions always stem from your own motivations. You never do something that you fundamentally don't want to do. Thus we are alway selfish.
That's a perfectly coherent argument: it just isn't very useful. It doesn't differentiate between someone who kills someone else for the money in their pocket, and the person who helps an old lady across the street.
If we then adopt definition #1, we find that while most of our actions are selfish, many are selfless, in that they don't have any immediate benefit to us, and are geared entirely towards helping others.
Those who are discussing evolutionary mechanisms for altruistic behavior will surely (and correctly) point out that altruism is reciprocal in nature - we help others so that they will help us later, and so that our social status as "givers" will be elevated. The evolutionary mechanisms for our selflessness are entirely selfish - however, WE OURSELVES are not necessarily selfish. The emotion of compassion is not internally selfish - we don't feel the urge to help ourselves, and turn that into helping others. The emotion, while selfishly designed, is internally selfless.
I think this makes definition #1, and its conclusions, the most useful: selfishness is acting for your own immediate best interests, and in that sense, we are not always selfish.In my view that “Life is a reaction to the void” I suggest that the ideal reaction to the void is to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Implicit in this reaction is the fact that if we are completely selfless and do not reach out to the limits of our capacities we deny others the benefits of our realized capacities; and if we are completely selfish we deny ourselves the benefits of others’ realized capacities and of God. So ideally we must simultaneously and equally be selfish and selfless. Indeed the “ideal reaction to the void” is a bio-philosophical symbiotic relationship between us all.
APR,
You have read “most scientists, historians, philosophers, et. al” ? Spare me from such Aristotelian comprehension. No one can claim that nowadays. Read Leakey’s "Origins’’ for a saner view of cooperative evolution. And where, please reference, is Dawkins’ notion of an extinction of altruism? Maybe I misread him. I thoroughly enjoyed “The Selfish Gene”. I do agree that Spencerian social evolution is more of a problem than a solution for human cooperative endeavors. Even E. O. Wilson outgrew those concepts. (See “Consilience”.)
We are selfish and it is stimulated by the society. The casual rejection of a selfish state is selfish in itself. The mind relatively will not endeavour to appreciate the subtle naivety but will be obstinate till the occasional fire extinguishes and then will prefer to ignore and will react…
I like to think not, however I feel we are. Our first instinct is to take care of ourselves, so for example: Give friend present=keep friend=your not a alone; Our actions to others, however unconscious we are about it, tend to be in some small way selfish. It is the actions we take that will always directly or indirectly affect us.
This question is better stated as, why do we want other people to feel good, those of us that do anyways, is it for ourselves or is it for them?
Whenever asking this question just consider what you do in the morning, who you talk about most often and what you’ll spend your next paycheck on.
The closest thing to selflessness we get is when we have children, and in a way that is only an extension of ourself, its our child. I would argue, just about anything you do is ultimately to reward yourself.
I think we are all selfish in the end. Why would we do anything unless it were to give something back to us? Happiness, physical pleasure, revenge, peace. There is nothing wrong with doing something that makes you feel good. I guess they way we usually define selfishness is when a person has no other motivation to do something unless is benefits them beyond quiet and subtle… If I give food to the poor because it’ll give me an award for doing so, that’s selfish to per the societal definition today. But If I gave food to the poor because I knew that it would make me feel better to share my goods, then that’s not what we call selfish.
In the end, I think pesemists believe that everything me do is selfsish, and everyone else is on the boarderline.
I’m moody so I can see it both ways. Ha.
Try looking up the word “Selfishness” it doesn’t mean what you claim.
Selfishness is a twisted concept…Every action we conduct holds a selfish connotation…I would say I live for those who love and need me (namely parents and bros). To suggest that anybody loves me at all is a selfish but affirming guess…especially to naturally decide that I may matter…all of this to confirm my own existence; to sub conciously prove my existence. Suicidals tend to eleminate the factors that would convince them that they are living for another being or cause…that´s why it´s so easy for them to jump, dive and die.
Now in terms of common action such as providing, aiding, giving and etc…all of these are selfishly motivated…I would agree with ahruygt…we give because it makes us feel good, we provide because of personal interest/profit or satisfaction…which would allow us to live, whereas the opposite would promote depression and then suicide, which is also selfishly motivated.
I would claim no such thing, and I think it’s a little offensive that you’re inferring I have. I could tell you that most days the sun comes up, but I don’t claim to have been there for all of them.
Your inference that my claim that most equate “selfishness” with “rational self interest” is predicated on having read them all is not only smug, it’s irrelevant.
Or do you feel that most don’t?
It depends on how you define “selfish.”
If you define selfish as self-interest, I’d say, yes, everything we do is selfish.
But “self-interest” is a dynamic thing. It is not necessarily just the body or just the mind. It can include abstract things such as ideas (beliefs) and possessions (bank accounts). Or it can include other people to whom we are emotionally attatched (friends and family), or the entirety of humanity for that matter.
Self-interest is best defined as “that which we love.” If you love all-things, then you are all-things, and you will act for the benefit of all-things. That is altruism. It’s still, nonetheless, “self-interest.”