Selfishness

[scorpia]

In another thread I noticed;

If everyone were truly devoted to being selfish the world would be a much better place. If you follow the logic of selfishness then each would act according to one's interests which are inherently the interests of all. The self interested human realizes that what is best for her/himself is that which is best for all. Thus the ultimate concern of such a person would be the welfare of all... not reaping rewards in heaven, but reaping the benefits of an intelligent, well fed, intentional society in the here and now.

This is something I am afraid I don't get though. When a person is selfish, they put themselves and their needs first over the needs of others, or at the cost of others. How can that cause people to be interested in helping others? If anything selfishness is what would cause people to be disinterested in helping others. But that is just my POV, if someone would like to tell me......

[Nyril]

How can that cause people to be interested in helping others?

Selfishness could better be seen as an investment of time vs how it benefits yourself.

Lets say you stop for a person who broke down on the side of the road. The selfishness here is that by spending 15 minutes helping someone you may save far more than 15 minutes in the future. That person may feel obligated to stop for another person 2-3 times, and all those people may feel obligated to stop 2-3 times to help others, and eventually those 15 minutes may have saved you 3 hours waiting for someone willing to stop.

What you've got to understand in this concept however is that selfish is not equal to stupid/ignorant/hasty. By spending an absolute minimum amount of time helping others, I could potentially get an extremely high return on that amount of time.

[palmera]

This is something I am afraid I don't get though. When a person is selfish, they put themselves and their needs first over the needs of others, or at the cost of others. How can that cause people to be interested in helping others? If anything selfishness is what would cause people to be disinterested in helping others. But that is just my POV, if someone would like to tell me......

Putting ones own interest foremost though is not the same thing as trying to gain "at the cost of others." The selfish individual, whose ideals are rooted in Reason [as the highest], whose life is intentional, and whose ultimate goal is happiness: expects nothing from anyone, nor gives, without mutual benefit; further that person doesn't give or expect to get anything unearned, judging the worth of a person by what they achieve and produce, not in what they say or think. (the model for this type of individual is Objectivism, a philosophy of living in the material world first espoused by Ayn Rand.) Such a person sees money not as the root of evil but as the means humans best relate to one another: fair trade based on mutual, equal benefit then becomes the model for treating others. For one thing, treating others as fellow traders with money as the currency of exchange and relation, one is not inhibited by prejudices of race, age, class or sex. Money is money; it is not black or white, old or young, male or female, rich or poor. Of course this is not the world we live in. Said prejudices have always shaped how we deal with one another.

It may seem harsh and calculating on the surface, but the selfish individual realizes that the welfare of humanity is intrinsically tied in to his/her own happiness, and acts accordingly. This is a very realistic, and materialistic view of the world. Such a person would not adhere to a desire for the meek to inherit the earth for- what would they do with it? how would they run it? they have none of the required skills to produce, to push humanity forward toward greater achievements. Humanity would stagnate. Rather than the meek inheriting the earth, why not educate the meek? Rather than keep the poor poor and away from the rich (because of the biblically sanctioned belief that they are those closest to G-d and will one day blossom like a mustard seed) why not educate, feed, and address their pressing physical needs rather than advance prayer and a spiritual transformation which does nothing other than serve as an "opiate."

Basically the selfish individual seeks to separate her/himself from the trappings of philosophies and actions which use others as crutches, which give to those who have not earned, to benefit those who make money without producing (i.e. those who seek to benefit monetarily from the able production of others) and which calls for one to feel guilty for having achieved through one's own ability; and further using this guilt as a means by which to punish or shame those who achieve. In this sense the selfish person would not adhere to religions like Christianity (not only simply because of its roots in theism) because, as Nietzsche pointed out, such beliefs not only go against human nature, but inhibit our freedoms and undermine the use of sound reasoning. (The objectivist would claim that Christians et.al do a lot of right things for the wrong reasons and that the repercussions of misguided actions can often be substantial) The selfish person would not give to charity or vote for welfare programs because of some spiritually based morality which imposes kind action, but rather because such things (done appropriately) benefit humankind in helping produce, among other things, a more educated society.

[ST88]

When a person is selfish, they put themselves and their needs first over the needs of others, or at the cost of others. How can that cause people to be interested in helping others?

There is such a thing as enlightened self-interest, promoted by Thomas Jefferson, of all people. Via enlightened self-interest, the individual contributes to society in order to get tangible benefits in return -- that is, to make it a better place for the individual to live in. If that happens to make it a better place for others to live in, then so be it. This also incorporates the concept of mutual assistance: "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." You're only scratching the other person's back so that you can get yours scratched, but you're still doing something of benefit to the other person.

[scorpia]

There is such a thing as enlightened self-interest, promoted by Thomas Jefferson, of all people. Via enlightened self-interest, the individual contributes to society in order to get tangible benefits in return -- that is, to make it a better place for the individual to live in. If that happens to make it a better place for others to live in, then so be it. This also incorporates the concept of mutual assistance: "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." You're only scratching the other person's back so that you can get yours scratched, but you're still doing something of benefit to the other person.

Selfishness could better be seen as an investment of time vs how it benefits yourself.

Lets say you stop for a person who broke down on the side of the road. The selfishness here is that by spending 15 minutes helping someone you may save far more than 15 minutes in the future. That person may feel obligated to stop for another person 2-3 times, and all those people may feel obligated to stop 2-3 times to help others, and eventually those 15 minutes may have saved you 3 hours waiting for someone willing to stop.

There's a major problem I see with that though. take for example the story of the wolf and the crane by Aesop;

A wolf was eating his supper one day when a bone stuck in his thoat. Choking and coughing, he howled about the countryside asking every animal he met to help him.
"There's a good reward for anyone who can save me." he spluttered.
A crane heard about this promise and offered to help. "Open your mouth wide, wolf." she said, and poked her long beak deep into his throat. "Here is the bone that has been troubling you," she added politely as soon as her head was out of the wolf's mouth. "I trust you will now be able to give me the reward you promised."
"Reward," laughed the wolf, showing his gleaming teeth in a mean smile and quite forgetting his sore throat. "You are lucky I did not snap your head off with one bite. That should be enough of a reward for you, ungrateful bird. And it is certainly all you will get from me."

If you only help people because you can get something out of it for yourself, you'll be disappointed.

The selfish individual, whose ideals are rooted in Reason [as the highest], whose life is intentional, and whose ultimate goal is happiness: expects nothing from anyone, nor gives, without mutual benefit; further that person doesn't give or expect to get anything unearned,

Sounds more reasonable

It may seem harsh and calculating on the surface, but the selfish individual realizes that the welfare of humanity is intrinsically tied in to his/her own happiness, and acts accordingly.

Not always though. What if say a person found that they could live on their own, and needs nothing from anybody.....

Such a person would not adhere to a desire for the meek to inherit the earth for- what would they do with it? how would they run it? they have none of the required skills to produce, to push humanity forward toward greater achievements.

The meek or the humble feel that other people are more deserving of wants and needs and put the needs of others before themselves. If they do anything, it would not be to make themselves look good but to get the job done. And I don't think "the meek" are without skills to "run the world".

Basically the selfish individual seeks to separate her/himself from the trappings of philosophies and actions which use others as crutches,

Like an altruistic paradox?

and further using this guilt as a means by which to punish or shame those who achieve. In this sense the selfish person would not adhere to religions like Christianity (not only simply because of its roots in theism) because, as Nietzsche pointed out, such beliefs not only go against human nature, but inhibit our freedoms and undermine the use of sound reasoning

Freedom to do what? To steal? To be a glutton?

The selfish person would not give to charity or vote for welfare programs because of some spiritually based morality which imposes kind action, but rather because such things (done appropriately) benefit humankind in helping produce, among other things, a more educated society.

Doing to to benefit humanity...The same as doing it to please God. Except the one who pleases God does not expect to hear gratitude, and hopefully can deal with the event of peer pressure to be immoral.

[CJK]

A society driven by self-interest and greed (Capitalism) segregates and divides people, which makes them much more easily manipulated by institutions like corporations.

The man driven by self-interest is feeding from hand to mouth, and an entire society in this state would be wholly ineffective, in that no one would have any time to philosophize about an alternative method of survival. In this state, the stupid masses are readily governed, as we can see with America today.

[Bugmaster]

I actually believe that all our actions are motivated by selfishness. When you help someone in need, you do it because it feels good. When you help someone in need at some pain to yourself, you do it because the alternative -- i.e., not helping them -- would cause you a much greater pain, and you know it.

[palmera]

CJK wrote

A society driven by self-interest and greed (Capitalism) segregates and divides people, which makes them much more easily manipulated by institutions like corporations.

The man driven by self-interest is feeding from hand to mouth, and an entire society in this state would be wholly ineffective, in that no one would have any time to philosophize about an alternative method of survival. In this state, the stupid masses are readily governed, as we can see with America today.

Is it Capitalism that divides and segregates or is it we who divide and segregate ourselves? True, the drive to lower the cost of production may drive some individuals/companies to do aweful things, but is the philosophy of capitalism to blame? No. In what society are people not segregated and divided along lines of ethnicity, gender, class, et.al? In what society is greed not a problem?

It seems that people are much more easily manipulated by institutions in societies in which there is no private ownership, no suffrage, no individual rights and freedoms. Communism and socialism have been proven time and again to not work- not only is it mathematically impossible for them to thrive, but such societies, through impoverishing and under-educating the masses are ripe for famines and rebellion.

An entire society driven by self-interest (within the parameters set above) would be much like the U.S.A; more educated and better led perhaps.(among other things). With reason as the highest ideal, and not an organized religion or misplaced sense of nationalism, society would be far better off- such reasoned selfishness would have no tolerance for those who operate under the assumptions of entitlement, or for those who would use another's ability for his own profit (i.e. nationalized businesses); nor would exclusions based on race, gender, age, class be of use in such a society for trade would be based on the merits of one's ability and character, not of one's appearance- should a producer operate under racist/classist/sexist modes, she/he would be doing her/himself a disservice.

As for not having time to "philosophize about an alternative method of survival:" there are very few people with the luxury in any society, and there always will be (it seems) because most of humanity is worried about physical needs, not spiritual. Rather than philosophize, they have to organize; they must worry about the next meal. Thus far it has been left to the few to "lead" the many- unfortunately we have not yet succeeded in having any society whose individuals each give an educated vote- perhaps if everyone were driven more by self interest we would be closer to achieving that goal.

[bernee51]

An entire society driven by self-interest (within the parameters set above) would be much like the U.S.A; more educated and better led perhaps.(among other things). With reason as the highest ideal, and not an organized religion or misplaced sense of nationalism, society would be far better off- such reasoned selfishness would have no tolerance for those who operate under the assumptions of entitlement, or for those who would use another's ability for his own profit (i.e. nationalized businesses); ...

This sounds very much like Objectivism. Are you a fan of Ayn Rand?

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Rand, Ayn. (1996) Atlas Shrugged. Signet Book; 35th Anniv edition. Appendix.