One of our commenters is having a discussion about selfishness on a board somewhere. He sent us the exchange to see if we wanted to add any of our 2 cents....
OUR BLOG COMMENTER WROTE:
Selfishness has gotten a bad rap. We are all selfish. Nobody ever does a single purely unselfish act. If you feed, clothe and shelter the poor 24/7 you are helping yourself feel good about yourself through your acts of generosity.
If we didn't look out for our own best interests nobody would. But not to worry, it's an automatic process. Nobody can do anything that doesn't serve their self interest in some way. It's actually impossible to be purely selfless.
********************************************************
THE OPPONENT’S REPLY:
Bah! This is just semantics. If we are to accept that all acts are selfish, then we're going to have to make a distinction between two kinds of selfishness -- selfishness that helps others and selfishness that only helps one's self. But, wait, we already have terms that could do this. We could, thus, redefine altruism as acting from self-interest to help others (Because it feels good), and redefine selfishness as self-interest that only helps oneself. There are other complications with this, but I won't bother to get into them.
**************************************************************
OUR BLOG COMMENTER WROTE:
I prefer to make the distinction between rational selfishness where you are mature
and responsible enough to act in life-affirming ways that do no harm to yourself or others and that of irrational selfishness where you (for example) substance abuse or engage in behavior that is harmful to yourself or others. But I stick to my assertion that we always behave selfishly. No need to split semantic hairs. We only have one perspective from which to act, that of our own wants and needs which are what drive our behavior.
***************************************************************
THE OPPONENT’S REPLY:
I reject your definitions on the grounds that they're unnecessarily a pain in the @$$. And because I think it's silly to broaden the meaning of words with negative connotations so that they can be applied to anyone and any action. And, consequently, require another descriptive term (so that they can be used coherently), i.e. a distinction between rational and irrational selfishness.
I also think your distinction fails to account for a specific behavior people need a term to describe-- selfishness (I'm using it for the sake of argument) that helps others ( not just selfishness "that do[es] no harm to yourself or others"). Your "rational selfishness" label is not specific enough for this. I think we can just use the term we've used all along: altruism. All it needs is a slight tweak in definition to quell the egoist's cherished argument that everyone is selfish.
Tuesday, 29 April 2008
Selfishness v. selflessness
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I HATE TO SAY THIS, AND LOOK A SIMPLETON (MY TRUE COLOURS) BUT THESE PEOPLE HAVE WAY TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS!!
Oh, dear, ANONYMOUS, that rather touches a nerve, as I'm also one of those with time to spend discussing nice points of semantics (or not-so-nice ones!)
Being a ruthless little Machiavellian from birth, I'd agree that we're all selfish creatures, instinctively (this would exclude the saints, but the whole reason they're saints is that they were mystically devoid of normal human instincts to grab the goodies all for themselves.) But selfish people (the rest of humanity) can still do unselfish things, for altruistic reasons.
Real, subtle selfishness is an art form---the secret is to APPEAR to be doing a selfless, generous act, while accomplishing one's own ends. An example would be: say three friends are dining out, and after a chatty meal, it is decided to order and spilt a decadent gooey giant chocolate dessert. One of the group earnestly begs the others to split it, taking only a small bite or two herself (need I even specify that we're talking about women?:):) In theory, she has been "unselfish" by declining to nab her rightful 1/3 of the dessert, but in reality she's been selfish, because she knows perfectly well that her dainty pecking makes her look more ascetic and refined, and the wolfing of the dessert will make her two friends fatter. She loves her friends, but she also wants to make sure they stay 5-10 pounds heavier than she is.
There! First chapter of "Advanced Selfishness for Dummies.":):)
Both arguments are correct - it depends on which way you look at it.
From a motivational standpoint, by definition it's impossible to act in an unselfish way. Even sacrificing yourself can be looked on as selfish if the actor would rather others survive than himself. The problem (if it is
such) with this approach is in it's limited usefulness - if all actions are selfish, the concept of selfishness/selflessness is of little value.
If you forget the internal workings of the individual's mind, you can look at who appears to benefit from the action. The problem then becomes the
criteria by which you judge who benefits. You can only use this method if you discount any spiritual satisfaction the actor may gain, or attach to it
a lower weighting than benefits to others. But what you're measuring here is how "good" a person is rather than if they're "selfish".
Oops, I didn't write that, was putting in a comment for my husband.
All love is self directed.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Post a Comment