A word of god on selfishness.

1 “Love one another” it has been said is the supreme law, but what power made it so? Upon what rational authority does the gospel of love rest? Why should I not hate mine enemies—if I “love” them does that not place me at their mercy?
2 Is it natural for enemies to do good unto each other—and WHAT IS GOOD?
3 Can the torn and bloody victim “love” the blood‐splashed jaws that rend him limb from limb?
4 Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?
5 Is not “lust and carnal desire” a more truthful term to describe “love” when applied to the continuance of the race? Is not the “love” of the fawning scriptures simply a euphemism for sexual activity, or was the “great teacher” a glorifier of eunuchs?
6 Love your enemies and do good to them that hate and use you—is this not the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back when kicked?
7 Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!; smite him hip and thigh, for self‐preservation is the highest law!
8 He who turns the other cheek is a cowardly dog!
9 Give blow for blow, scorn for scorn, doom for doom—with compound interest liberally added thereunto! Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, aye four‐fold, a hundred‐fold! Make yourself a Terror to your adversary, and when he goeth his way, he will possess much additional wisdom to ruminate over. Thus shall you make yourself respected in all the walks of life, and your spirit—your immortal spirit—shall live, not in an intangible paradise, but in the brains and sinews of those whose respect you have gained.

 

Sounds hardcore Shai Gar... A lil LaVey I see...

 

Psychological egoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism) is what you're looking for. In addition to the article's objections I add that PE is not a falsifiable theory (and is not a normative one) so cannot be true or false.

 

People always give this as the excuse against

PIE TIME! 3.14pm

Anarchy, however it's blatantly not true. People tend to realise the idea and not attack for that reason. However when others do attack, an extremely overblown response generally forestalls other attacks.

The trick is not to kill, and thus deprive others of their parents or children. Theft of company tends to bring on revenge.

Otherwise, the Mafia would have been long destroyed by its victims.

 

Ayn Rand is God?

 

Good catch.

 

Well, are you arguing about selfishness or free-will actually?


Anyway, to further your logic am I fair to say that being happy is an act of selfishness as well ?

I do not disagree with this theory but is that wrong to be selfish even on the subconscious level? Animals and insects do the same not just human.

I breathe and my heart beats every second, is that a selfish act too? The only way to stop it is to kill myself in some way.... being alive makes me happy, but that's being selfish.

To end my selfishness, is also an act of selfishness.... because it's only for my own benefit - an exercise of free-will. Well, it becomes a paradox.

Not that your view is wrong, but incomplete I would say. Besides, I wish your view is true because then our world will be a much simpler place to live in.

 

I recommend that people know the difference between enlightened self interest and rational selfishness.

 

....ok...Ill agree with you...the basic human instinct so survive, protect and mate.

On all primal levels the brains of every being ask three questions first about anything it encounters.

Will it hurt me?
Can I eat it?
Can I mate with It?

These three primal needs are inherently selfish. But if your brain didnt ask these questions we would have tried to eat the Trex instead of run from it. We would have mated with the birds instead of our own kind.

But to go deeper into the human existence, we are so much deeper than that, and to come in here and call a bunch of idealists selfish...well I think you could hurt more than one ego in here.

 

Of course every person is selfish. What is so wrong with that?

 

There is a difference between selfishness and self-interest. Being selfish is harmful. Being self-interested is not necessarily harmful. If you think of the self as I do, as a non-fixed and essential entity, it is easy to see how helping others is self-interest. Actually, I'd argue that serving others is the purpose of the self.

 

I'm actually amused by how disingenuous the definition of "selfish" is in this thread. It seems that "selfish" is being defined as simply acting in your own interest. However, that isn't what being selfish means. Selfish is acting in your own interest to the exclusion or detriment of others.

Hence, why I suggested people look up the definition of enlightened self interest. The nature of helping others is in our own interest, but it is not to the exclusion or detriment of others, and thereby it is not selfish.

As such, I will define any action that serves our own interests, while benefiting others, as a human action not based upon selfishness.

 

Interesting topic..

I like Satya's thought.

Though, one could also argue that there is never an act that doesn't serve someone else in some way..

 

Your thought was good as well. I don't think you should have edited it.

To expand upon it, you might ask why soldiers in the past have thrown themselves on grenades to save their comrades. This action nearly ensures their own death so that they will not be able to enjoy any reward for their actions. Therefore, the only interest they have served is looking out for the welfare of others.

Why have some Buddhist monks set themselves ablaze to demonstrate their ideals? Such actions sometimes defy rational.

It is the nature of human beings' ability to learn that even when we cause detriment to each other, we still benefit each other. Pain and suffering are among the best teachers. However, what we gain does not always equate to what we have lost.

 

Thanks, I wasn't sure if mine made sense enough so I edited it, but yeah, it's interesting what people will do for others.

I hear you, especially if a person jumps on a grenade for someone.

If I were the hero guy I'd look at the person that I'm saving to see their reaction. It would suck if they just walked away.

"Hey, this grenade was meant for you! Where're you goin-" BLAMM!!!

 

Judging the use of the name in your username, I feel you should know the answer already. ; )

 

human nature

I think what you are trying to establish goes to the core of the human experience (that sounded a little pretentious!! Bare with me!)

A person's belief about the make up of human nature will affect how they view the world, other people and their actions. If you beleive humans are entirely selfish then you are entirely justified in your own mind to act any way you want in order to get ahead in life. If you create a society in this image, then don't expect any kindness, generosity, honesty or fair play.

If a person beleives that yes humans do need to act in their own interests much of the time due to the need to survive, but that there is much evidence all around of acts of non reciprocal kindness and generosity everwhere, everyday, then they can shape a society which sees people working together in a common interest, aware of their common humanity and able to empathise with each other.

Geneticists tell us that we need to pass on our DNA and that is the purpose of animals. This is true. It is also true that human beings are the first species on earth which have developed the mental capacity to see a bigger picture than themselves. They are able to relate to the pain of another and can choose to help if they wish. Humans have the ability to see that the world could be better for everyone and then try to improve it. Humans can also choose if they wish to act entirely in their own self interest. This may however leave them feeling empty inside and with no meaning in their life. (if you are interested see: Adam Curtis's documentary 'The Century of the Self'; it is on google videos in 3 parts)

You could argue that this debate is immaterial as most of the richest countries are following the doctrine of enterprise capitalism which is a particularly aggressive form of capitalism which holds up competition to be the highest ideal. This doctrine is causing conflict all around the world, is driving all the wealth upwards into a smaller and smaller number of hands and is destroying the environment. Due to the existence of the nuclear bomb, the stakes have never been higher for the human race.

If as a species we do not find a way of cooperating, we might well be heading towards catastrophe. What sort of world would you like to live in?