All of our actions are selfish and completely self-motivated. Give me a scenario, and I'll tell you how or why it's selfish. Love, Religion/faith, Charity, these are as selfish as it gets. "That's preposterous!", you might say. But it isn't. The reason that everything is selfish is because actions depend (primarily) on two things:
- happiness/the avoidance of sadness
- reason.
No one intentionally makes themselves more sad, unless they derive a happiness from it that transcends the feeling of sadness. Furthermore, people don't do things that don't make sense, UNLESS it makes sense to them.
Religion's completely selfish. It seems ludicrous, at first...because we do it all for the big man, right? Correct. But we do it because pleasing the big man up there grants us entry into heaven/the after-life. If you don't agree with me, ask yourself whether you'd still live as god wanted you to live IF you were promised to go to hell. Of course you wouldn't - because it makes no sense to spend your whole life chasing after a punishment coupled with eternal damnation. Faith isn't any more selfless, because it revolves around self-development (which isn't a bad thing). But the keyword is "self"!
Love's selfish, too. To prove this, I'll take the example of "if you love someone, let them go." You only let it go because deep down inside, it makes YOU happy to see them happy. Knowing that the person that you think deserves absolute happiness, will be happy gives you a sense of happiness that is greater than the one derived from staying with them. If you truly cared about someone, the ultimate happiness obtained from this action. After all, love isn't a one-way street.
Surely, charity can't be selfish! Oh, but this is, too. Am I accusing Mother Teresa of being selfish? Hell yes. Anyone who does a good act, only does so because it makes them feel better, or because it makes sense (at the time). Any good act done, is done in order to appease your conscience. It seems hard to imagine how risking your life to save an unrelated little boy from a burning house could be selfish...but it's selfish. You help people because YOU feel bad if you don't, and are in a position to help. We tell ourselves that we have an obligation to help the unfortunate, like it's some higher moral order...but it really isn't. We help because we have our own interests at stake.
Bear in mind that the whole concept of selfishness has been given negative connotations by society. We've been conditioned to be disgusted by selfishness. The reality is, that it's what drives us. If our ancestors weren't selfish, we wouldn't be alive. None of us would be alive, or would have any money, or would have a roof over our heads, or anything else, for that matter. If we were truly selfish, we should have nothing - because there's ALWAYS someone less fortunate who needs what we have.
Selfishness isn't a bad thing. It's how the world works. We've been told that selfishness is evil...but have you realized that evil is a man-made concept? Evil doesn't stem from the characteristics of man, it stems from man, itself. If you really want to bring good vs. evil into this, what makes an act evil is not whether or not it was selfish, it's how it was handled or committed.
I guess I'm just tired of the condescending"sacrificial-holier-than-thou-for-the-greater-good-of-mankind" tone that I hear from Philantrophists and "kind-hearted people."
The world ain't all sunshines and rainbows. You don't have to be selfless to do good. Alternatively, you do have to be selfish.
Peace,
- knowledge
BTW, I finally got around to adding a subscribe button. Look to the top left of the screen!
BTW, I finally got around to adding a subscribe button. Look to the top left of the screen!
Remember, dash & a name before you hit the "post comment" button!
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to disarm any action as selfish when you use individualism as your main point of reference.
ReplyDeleteYou brought about the point of evolution and how selfishness comes into play; our survival is due to this selfish gene. I tend to argue this point, based on the sole fact of how humans live socially; co-operatively. Since humans are social animals and they benefit from interactions with others, natural selection should favor behavior that allows us to better get along with others.
Your conclusion is that altruism is no more than a disguise for selfishness, a gene set in stone through centuries of evolution. The problem with this, is that co-operation ever preceded evolution. Life began when complex molecules came together in cooperation, to perform the functions that we now consider to be characteristics of life.
You should check out the book, A Bridge To Humanity by Walter Goldschmidt.
Anyways, as for evil. I detest the word. It leaves a distaste in my mouth, as to when people call others a 'monster' for doing certain actions. Whereas these people are usually just as normal as the average-goer, but people refuse to believe that. Because, it's a terrifying thought. It could lead to the belief that everyone is your enemy, that anyone can cause you certain demise; which is in part true. But, to live with such paranoia is ridiculous.
Sorry for the late reply!
ReplyDelete"It is easy to disarm any action as selfish when you use individualism as your main point of reference."
True, but aren't I just calling it how it is?
"You brought about the point of evolution and how selfishness comes into play; our survival is due to this selfish gene. I tend to argue this point, based on the sole fact of how humans live socially; co-operatively. Since humans are social animals and they benefit from interactions with others, natural selection should favor behavior that allows us to better get along with others."
But if we take it back to hunter-gatherer days, protection and care was ONLY for family. There are still remnants of that system today - family crests, royalty, "blood is thicker than water". We only give if there's something in it for us. I'd argue that cooperation was only done in order to survive. If it held no survival advantage, we never would have done it.
Also, survival of the fittest/natural selection encourages us to weed out the weak. If we were truly selfish. We live in cooperation because of the survival advantages (castes, treaties, clans, gangs, societies, etc.)
"Life began when complex molecules came together in cooperation, to perform the functions that we now consider to be characteristics of life. "
Correct. But that "cooperation" wasn't intentionally willed, or freely chosen.
"It leaves a distaste in my mouth, as to when people call others a 'monster' for doing certain actions."
I hear you. The more time passes, the more inclined I am to start thinking that morals are all relative. I guess it's all about balance...or luck.
I honestly belive that you can make unselfish things here in the world just because you want to make the world a better place, take recycling for example there must many old people whom are recycling and stuff without any credit for it.
ReplyDeleteI can donate to charity anonymously without getting the feeling that makes me happy because I dont even know where the money goes I just do it because I want to help,
But I agree with you, but there are some people who are exceptions in certain situation.
and let's say someone who gets happy from helping others thats better than getting happy from raping kids(very bad example here but you get it)
What im trying to say is that selfishness is not always evil and in some cases its even good because this one getting happy from helping others would not help others if he/she didnt get happy :)
Welcome!
ReplyDelete"I honestly belive that you can make unselfish things here in the world just because you want to make the world a better place, take recycling for example there must many old people whom are recycling and stuff without any credit for it."
But again, I would argue for you to boil it down to the very root of their action. Would they recycle if there wasn't any (perceived) point of doing so? Do these people recycle because it's there way of minimizing the harm that THEY do to the earth? Do they recycle because they don't want future generations to suffer for OUR environmental mistakes?
"I can donate to charity anonymously without getting the feeling that makes me happy because I dont even know where the money goes I just do it because I want to help,"
But aren't there other motives that don't involve recognition? By donating anonymously, you do it because you want to help. I highly doubt you would donate if it was morally wrong and if donating made you feel horrible.
"What im trying to say is that selfishness is not always evil and in some cases its even good because this one getting happy from helping others would not help others if he/she didnt get happy :)
I'm in complete agreement with you. I don't think selfishness should be frowned upon - the people who often call others selfish would find that the motivation for THEIR actions are selfish, too.
I just don't agree with how being selfish has been perverted to mean wrong or immoral. People always say "stop being so selfish"; but what that actually means is, "I don't agree with what you're doing". There's a huge difference between what's said, and what's intended - and I think it's important to differentiate between the two.
"But again, I would argue for you to boil it down to the very root of their action. Would they recycle if there wasn't any (perceived) point of doing so? Do these people recycle because it's there way of minimizing the harm that THEY do to the earth? Do they recycle because they don't want future generations to suffer for OUR environmental mistakes?"
ReplyDeleteValid points, but still if a man alone i just recycle because he thinks its the best thing he can do for the world and the future generation, he alone will not make alot of change directly and will never be the blamed because what he didnt do. If future generation suffer from our mistakes I guess the politician and ppl overall should be blamed I wouldnt have a problem of being one of 6 billions to be blamed of something after I was dead.
"But aren't there other motives that don't involve recognition? By donating anonymously, you do it because you want to help. I highly doubt you would donate if it was morally wrong and if donating made you feel horrible."
Hmm like 99% of all the ppl who donates thinks like this I guess but still the must be some ppl like take regularly month donation automatically from your bank acount to the red cross, you will never get credit for it except maybe in the beginning, but after a while you don't even get the happy feeling each time the money goes away,
some ppl won't even notice and how can that be selfish?
How can a suicide be selfish?
Sure, you create alot of problem for your family and your friends,
but that selfishness compared to selfishness of being forgotten in a couple of years?
in like 20-40 years no one will even think about you.
In the long run it cant be selfish,
me myself I would like to live to prove something and to be remembered even after my death, thats selfish and a good thinking process to avoid even thinking about suicide, I guess thinking of what problems you're causing the ones around you're an even better one :)
Selfishness is a relative thing. To be selfish is to be less considerate of, less kind to, or less generous toward others. Everyone has a self and all have motives, reasons, and attitudes. To be less pure of heart with one's motive, is to be selfish. Selflessness is to be big, generous, thoughtful. The seven deadly sins tend to indicate selfishness, while the seven virtues bring about a selflessness. There exists a difference in serving one's highest principles versus one's low desires.
ReplyDeleteYour argument seems reasonable, but merely has replaced the definition of selfishness with selfness.
Welcome!
ReplyDeleteBut what happens when your highest principles are your lowest desires?
I really don't think that I'm equivocating selfishness and selflessness. I think that at the core, actions that seem selfless are primarily selfish. But as opposed to the biblical definitions, I don't think that selfishness is to be condemned. It's still possible to do good acts even if they're self-interested. Nothing changes, to be honest. It just seems like people are fooling themselves when they claim that their actions aren't motivated by personal desires.
This passage might help you understand the point that I'm trying to make?
http://lifewithknowledge.blogspot.com/2010/02/self-sufficiency.html#comments
"Selfishness is a relative thing. To be selfish is to be less considerate of, less kind to, or less generous toward others. Everyone has a self and all have motives, reasons, and attitudes." - This made me wonder....
ReplyDeleteDictionary.com - "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others."
Well, Lifewithknowledge's understanding of selfish is entirely correct according to the above definitions. An example action: If you were to pour water into a cup. This is selfish on the premise that you are pouring water to quench your thirst, or better yet, because YOU WANT TO (your interest).
I think the issue here is a discrepancy between the definition of selfish and society's connotation of it. Generally people believe selfish actions to be those which give the person being accused benefit while at the same time NEGATIVELY affecting another person.