|
I've been thinking a bit more on this, and I think I've reached a conclusion. (though it has been very hard to put said conclusion into words)
As Wikipedia states, selfishness is the intention to do something in order to gain from it. However, there seem to be degrees, or shades, of selfishness (kind of like grey... gee, we do tend to have a lot of grey in life).
If you are completely selfish, you will always take as much as possible. If you are completely selfless, you will always give as much as possible. Everyone I have seen or heard about falls between the two. You need some of both to live and grow as an individual, as is reinforced by jdseemoreglass's opinion.
I disagree with G_G's statement here: As a simple example, lets consider a pie chart. Lets say you're in a situation where whoever helps prepare the pie, gets a piece.
It is not selfish to help prepare the pie for the sole reason of getting a piece when it's done, because that's fair I think that this is selfish, but no more than it is selfless. I think you can have one while having the other- there is not a definition (that I know of) for 'neither selfish nor selfless.'
Original OP:
What is selfishness?
Wikipedia definition: Selfishness is placing concern with oneself or one's own interests above the well-being or interests of others.[1][2] Selfishness is the opposite of altruism or selflessness.
Seems simple, but then nothing in life is simple- or very logical, for that matter.
I sometimes think I'm selfish, just for thinking about myself more than anyone else.
For example, is (for the most part) talking about yourself a lot on IRC selfish?
I asked about this on #tlponies. This is what I got: + Show Spoiler +[09:06] <Fencar> I like attention a lot. All I want to do in IRC is talk about myself. Does that make me selfish? [09:06] <@Wikt> I do that all the time and no one has complained about it [09:06] <Razielim> and wikt even is mod [09:06] <Razielim> however he did that [09:07] <@Wikt> I have no idea [09:07] <+Phearlock> I think it depends on how much your daily suffering amuses us. [09:07] == Nettleberry` [~nettleb@pool-108-11-230-142.hrbgpa.east.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout] [09:07] <Razielim> and one day I will get banned for voicing my opinions too harshly [09:07] <Razielim> it just happens [09:07] <@Wikt> I think it just happened [09:07] <Fencar> Hmm [09:07] <Fencar> okay [09:07] <@Wikt> No well, I do remember how it came to be [09:07] <Razielim> I know I talk about my own stuff sometimes [09:07] <Razielim> and no one listens [09:07] <@Wikt> Or no one reacts [09:08] <@Wikt> I often read stuff and have nothing to comment, just like, OK [09:08] <Razielim> like yesterday I talked about my Vegas,or my skype google problem [09:08] <Razielim> and no one even cared [09:08] <Fencar> Oh, so even if you take up space in IRC, no one actually -has- to read it? [09:08] <Razielim> but at least I gathered lines [09:08] <Razielim> for the stats [09:08] <Razielim> no fencar [09:08] <Fencar> Okay [09:08] <Razielim> just go right ahead [09:08] <@Wikt> That's kinda how it is. It's there for us to read if we so wish [09:08] <Alido> I. go [09:08] <+Pirotechnix> everyone reads every word i say because i'm JUST that impor hahahaha i couldn't finish that sentence with a straight face [09:08] <Fencar> Okay, cool
So, apparently that is not selfish and people can just ignore you. But what about the motives of the one who is talking about himself/herself? Are they selfish, or are they just lonely?
+ Show Spoiler +This is something I tried to think up, tell me what you think of it. I don't have a high opinion of it:
Even seemingly simple situations can be complicated.
While walking around somewhere, you see two people arguing about something on the ground. You see someone come by as the argument starts getting heated, and starts talking to them(we'll call him Bob). One person starts getting very angry, while the other is calm and convincing. It seems that the calm one convinces Bob, and gets to pick up the item and walk away.
From the perspective of the calm one:
You get into an argument with somebody over something you both found on the ground. You believe you are in the right, while the other also believes that they are in the right of the argument. The argument escalates. Someone walks over and asks what the big deal is. You manage to start talking first, taking a few liberties in twisting the story to make Bob believe you over the other.
You even slip Bob a few coins- is that selfish, to bribe someone in order to get your way when the other person is 'obviously' trying to take 'your' property?
I think that what counts are the intentions, whether they are selfish or generous.
This was shorter than I had intended, but hopefully what I'm trying to say is communicated.
+ Show Spoiler +My first blog, and hoping that it didn't suck. I would have posted a blog a long time ago if I didn't think that whatever I wrote sucked.
Edit: I'm extremely, extremely anxious to see what people think of this. I'm not sure what to think about that.
 
|
In my opinion, every action is necessarily selfish. Even when we engage in seemingly selfless or altruistic behavior, we are doing it for selfish reasons. Really, the term "selfish" is simply meant as a judgement, an indictment that you are not doing something I want. In other words, the term is applied to people, for selfish reasons. We could go in circles all day like this.
I try to avoid using judgmental terms like this. Usually such judgments are illogical or based on ignorance. My 2 cents.
|
Wow, I never thought of it that way. Those 2 cents are worth $200, IMO.
+ Show Spoiler +I just hope people don't use those words to justify bad actions.
|
I wouldn't worry too much about being selfish, as long as you're not losing friends and family over it  It's pretty universal to have your own self-preservation in mind, and want to constantly assess your self-worth. Self-esteem and comparison is a big thing with most people.
I think a much more interesting question is: Does there exist a truly, purely altruistic (selfless) idea or action?
|
On December 18 2012 04:33 Fencar wrote:Wow, I never thought of it that way. Those 2 cents are worth $200, IMO. + Show Spoiler +I just hope people don't use those words to justify bad actions.
Yes, I see your point. But that is because people equate the term "selfish" to mean harming other people. If I evolved to feel empathetic emotions for other people, then I can be selfish in helping others. The meaning of the term itself has come to pretty much mean doing something other people don't want, which is a very narrow definition imo. That is why many people avoid the word and use words like "self-interested."
|
On December 18 2012 04:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I wouldn't worry too much about being selfish, as long as you're not losing friends and family over it It's pretty universal to have your own self-preservation in mind, and want to constantly assess your self-worth. Self-esteem and comparison is a big thing with most people. I think a much more interesting question is: Does there exist a truly, purely altruistic (selfless) idea or action?
First thing that comes to mind is sacrificing yourself for the greater good(EX, any movie you can think of where the main character dies to save the world from ending), but then that would be selfish in a way if you don't want to live through more struggles and hardships. But then, if you would prefer to live so you could take the bad with the good, but sacrifice yourself anyway then that would be pretty selfless, I suppose.
On December 18 2012 04:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 04:33 Fencar wrote:Wow, I never thought of it that way. Those 2 cents are worth $200, IMO. + Show Spoiler +I just hope people don't use those words to justify bad actions. Yes, I see your point. But that is because people equate the term "selfish" to mean harming other people. If I evolved to feel empathetic emotions for other people, then I can be selfish in helping others. The meaning of the term itself has come to pretty much mean doing something other people don't want, which is a very narrow definition imo. That is why many people avoid the word and use words like "self-interested."
Interesting. I'm not sure what else to say. 
|
On December 18 2012 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
In my opinion, every action is necessarily selfish. Even when we engage in seemingly selfless or altruistic behavior, we are doing it for selfish reasons. Really, the term "selfish" is simply meant as a judgement, an indictment that you are not doing something I want. In other words, the term is applied to people, for selfish reasons. We could go in circles all day like this.
I try to avoid using judgmental terms like this. Usually such judgments are illogical or based on ignorance. My 2 cents.
That feels like a cop-out. There's still a huge practical difference between selfishly helping others and selfishly hurting them.
And for almost everyone there's a moral difference. Arguing about the definition of selfishness changes little, the main point is whether you are helping others, hurting them or neither.
|
Being selfish in a situation is not the same as getting something beneficial out of it. If you do something with an awareness that you are gaining something while being unfair to someone else, then that is selfish. If you do something that you gain from and you are careful to not infringe on the gains of others, then that is not selfish. It's not selfless either, which would be sacrificing your own gains to increase the gains of others, but it's not selfish.
As a simple example, lets consider a pie chart. Lets say you're in a situation where whoever helps prepare the pie, gets a piece.
It is not selfish to help prepare the pie for the sole reason of getting a piece when it's done, because that's fair
However, if you are the one who is dividing up the pie when it's done and you give yourself a bit bigger piece, that is selfish.
Let's say you live alone but the other people have kids or room mates or something, and you decide to give up part of your piece to make their bigger so they can take some home to share with others, that is selfless.
Selfishness is not simply doing things for benefits, it is intentionally putting more value on your own benefits than on the benefits of others. Heck, you could do everything you can day after day to avoid gaining anything from anything, and you would fail constantly. You just can't live a normal life without benefiting from things all over the place. It's only when you take advantage of others that you're being selfish.
|
I think I agree with G_G for the most part. You kind of have to figure out what people really mean when they say you're selfish, and I think the most common interpretation is when someone is actually offending people in terms of his/her focus on themselves.
I think that there is some variability though, because being offensive is subjective. Some people might be offended by smaller things and call you selfish for it (maybe like starting to eat before everybody is ready), while others may be offended for things that are more reasonable (like eating a pie in the fridge meant for everybody).
I think the reasonable definition of selfishness is doing things that are to the detriment of others. So long as you aren't harming people then it shouldn't be considered the negative form of selfishness, but normal "moral" seflishness.
|
I've been thinking a bit more on this, and I think I've reached a conclusion. (though it has been very hard to put said conclusion into words)
As Wikipedia states, selfishness is the intention to do something in order to gain from it. However, there seem to be degrees, or shades, of selfishness (kind of like grey... gee, we do tend to have a lot of grey in life).
If you are completely selfish, you will always take as much as possible. If you are completely selfless, you will always give as much as possible. Everyone I have seen or heard about falls between the two. You need some of both to live and grow as an individual, as is reinforced by jdseemoreglass's opinion.
I disagree with G_G's statement here: As a simple example, lets consider a pie chart. Lets say you're in a situation where whoever helps prepare the pie, gets a piece.
It is not selfish to help prepare the pie for the sole reason of getting a piece when it's done, because that's fair I think that this is selfish, but no more than it is selfless. I think you can have one while having the other- there is not a definition (that I know of) for 'neither selfish nor selfless.'
|
There has to be a balance between being selfless and being selfish. If you dont have anything for yourself, how can you help other people?
To a degree, I would say its kind of human nature to be selfish, survival of the fittest.
However, selflessness could be applied to natural selection when being selfless outweighs the benefits of being selfish.
|
We have to be really careful here and be as conceptually clear as possible. It's very easy to define selfishness in terms of ownership of desire: "I want x, y, z, but because it is me that wants it and thus I act according to my own desire, I am in turn selfish." But this defines selfishness in a way that is misleading (makes the opposite impossible) and also doesn't work very well for a variety of reasons that I won't go into right now (TRUST ME OK).
However, if we define selfishness in terms of objects of desire, things get much more interesting. There can be all sorts of objects of desire: They can be self-regarding (the desire to eat something, buy something for yourself), other-regarding (desire to see a child smile, alleviate someone else's suffering), purely malicious (that someone else fails and suffers) and so on. If the object of your desire is something self-regarding, that desire is a selfish one; if the object is other-regarding, an unselfish one. So much for desires.
When we talk about selfishness in the context of people, we talk about character traits; selfishness in that sense is almost always seen as a negative trait to have. Character traits are acquired habitually, i.e. by performing lots of certain kinds of actions. So if a person indulges habitually in a lot of selfish desires and acts them out, or in fact prioritizes them over other-regarding desires and so on (we also say: acts purely or mostly according to self-interest), then that person is selfish.
EDIT: To go one step further, I heavily lean towards framing the ethical selfish/unselfish (character) divide into a larger context that deals with attitudes towards the self in general. We have this sphere of experience that we share with everyone else that is 'the self', i.e. we all have a self and can take various attitudes towards ourselves. I think selfish/unselfish can be derived from a certain attitude about the self: If you think of yourself as more valuable than others and thus think that you deserve more than others (or less), then you will accordingly prioritize your actions in a selfish or unselfish manner. That way, selfishness becomes an issue of proper self-assessment, stemming from hubris or exaggerated humbleness. Hitting the right mark between those extremes when it comes to attitudes about the self is of course very difficult and subject to debate, but that's another story.
|
If you get a lot of pleasure by helping others, are you selfless or are you selfish?
|
Neither. If you do it to feel good, then the act is a selfish one; if you do it to help others, then it is not. Even though the action might be indistinguishable in that case, the two things (pleasure and helping) can come apart in certain situations. In those situations then, if you've been doing things solely for the sake of pleasure, you will not help others, but if you've been doing them for the sake of helping, then you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
