Are Humans Inherently Selfish?
- Thread starter Ameatypie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You've got ahead of yourself a little, eh?
You seem to have already decided that selfish actions are bad and selfless ones are good, just by being those things.
I take the objectivist stance on this issue (or at least the phrasing). That is to say, there is a difference between reasoned self-interest and selfishness. The former suggests taking actions which benefit yourself, but the latter implies doing the same but at the expense of others.
Acting to win a competition is self-interest, rigging the competition is selfish (among other things).
Your examples seem kind of silly. The first seems to imply that no emotion exists behind the concept of 'love'. That there is no cause and in fact the effect IS the cause, it's just an infinite feedback loop of posturing and pretending, we love each other because we want each other to love us. I find myself wondering what your life has been like.
I mean, sure, there are some hard truths out there about the nature of emotions, of consciousness. However, this attitude of bringing all of human experience to self-interest, and then pejoratively referring to it as selfishness, seems intended to destroy any meaning we attribute to our actions instead of attempting to discover if it does. It's the lame argument that if we figured out how our brains are wired, that there might be an ultimate physical reason we are who we are, that it reduces the phenomenon of human experience.
That if we seek out others not just to share ourselves but to partake in others, we are selfish and relationships have no meaning.
That if we help others and want to be helped in turn, we are selfish and cooperation has no meaning.
The idea that the unknown is some quantum wave function of possibility, and to collapse it to a single known state, destroys the beauty. When in fact, it's been in that state all along.
The second example posits a similar scenario. That if we hold a value, to act in accordance with it, is inherently selfish. Regardless of the value. Again, prejudging.
In summary, you need to reconsider your question, what you actually want to ask. I've explored what I think your question implies that you are asking, but you need to be more clear. It suggests an attitude already in place, and I think it's an incorrect one, or at least it's not a useful one.
Peace out, baby.
Note: Not actually me.
You seem to have already decided that selfish actions are bad and selfless ones are good, just by being those things.
I take the objectivist stance on this issue (or at least the phrasing). That is to say, there is a difference between reasoned self-interest and selfishness. The former suggests taking actions which benefit yourself, but the latter implies doing the same but at the expense of others.
Acting to win a competition is self-interest, rigging the competition is selfish (among other things).
Your examples seem kind of silly. The first seems to imply that no emotion exists behind the concept of 'love'. That there is no cause and in fact the effect IS the cause, it's just an infinite feedback loop of posturing and pretending, we love each other because we want each other to love us. I find myself wondering what your life has been like.
I mean, sure, there are some hard truths out there about the nature of emotions, of consciousness. However, this attitude of bringing all of human experience to self-interest, and then pejoratively referring to it as selfishness, seems intended to destroy any meaning we attribute to our actions instead of attempting to discover if it does. It's the lame argument that if we figured out how our brains are wired, that there might be an ultimate physical reason we are who we are, that it reduces the phenomenon of human experience.
That if we seek out others not just to share ourselves but to partake in others, we are selfish and relationships have no meaning.
That if we help others and want to be helped in turn, we are selfish and cooperation has no meaning.
The idea that the unknown is some quantum wave function of possibility, and to collapse it to a single known state, destroys the beauty. When in fact, it's been in that state all along.
The second example posits a similar scenario. That if we hold a value, to act in accordance with it, is inherently selfish. Regardless of the value. Again, prejudging.
In summary, you need to reconsider your question, what you actually want to ask. I've explored what I think your question implies that you are asking, but you need to be more clear. It suggests an attitude already in place, and I think it's an incorrect one, or at least it's not a useful one.
Peace out, baby.
Note: Not actually me.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yeeeeeesssssssss.
Sounds nihilistic, but ultimately, despite all appearances to the contrary all humans live in their personal bubble. How they make decisions is driven by their individual minds. Their minds have an instinctive drive given by evolution to survive and propagate genes. Thus, the fundamental core of all humans is driven by an engine which is ultimately selfish. Those that fail to be selfish in some respect will eventually die genetically, never to be seen again.
The guy jumping on the grenade could be an example of instinctively programmed familial self-sacrificial tendencies for the survival of his family (and thus a large component of his genetic material). Except that he failed to get an evolutionary benefit from it because his friends he formed familial bonds with weren't his genetic family.
But it still was an instinctive reaction formed by a fundamentally selfish genetic drive.
Reality is a harsh mistress; humans aren't nearly as super-special-awesome as we like to pretend.
Still, no need to view selfish/selflessness on an absolute scale. The generic human morality scale seems to work just fine most of the time. A parent sacrificing everything for their kid to succeed is pretty selfless on the human morality scale, while on the absolute scale it can be viewed pretty clearly as a selfish genetic safe-guarding.
Long answer: yeeeeeesssssssss.
Sounds nihilistic, but ultimately, despite all appearances to the contrary all humans live in their personal bubble. How they make decisions is driven by their individual minds. Their minds have an instinctive drive given by evolution to survive and propagate genes. Thus, the fundamental core of all humans is driven by an engine which is ultimately selfish. Those that fail to be selfish in some respect will eventually die genetically, never to be seen again.
The guy jumping on the grenade could be an example of instinctively programmed familial self-sacrificial tendencies for the survival of his family (and thus a large component of his genetic material). Except that he failed to get an evolutionary benefit from it because his friends he formed familial bonds with weren't his genetic family.
But it still was an instinctive reaction formed by a fundamentally selfish genetic drive.
Reality is a harsh mistress; humans aren't nearly as super-special-awesome as we like to pretend.
Still, no need to view selfish/selflessness on an absolute scale. The generic human morality scale seems to work just fine most of the time. A parent sacrificing everything for their kid to succeed is pretty selfless on the human morality scale, while on the absolute scale it can be viewed pretty clearly as a selfish genetic safe-guarding.
Former IB student here, I'm far from the TOK material now, but I'll try to answer that.
To an extent humans are indeed, inherently selfish, as far as the instinct of self-preservation is concerned. Yet, for better or worse, most of us are bombarded with situations/examples/teachings that altruism is a good thing and we should strive for it, and we have some altruism passed down in our genes too, from the former generations. So people are somewhere between the two extremes, and no human is completely selfish or selfless.
To the OP, your examples are somewhat flawed. Most people love their wife and kids. Even if they don't really love their wife, they'd still tell her they do, since they need her support. It would be stupid to tell her "I loved you in the first 2 years of our marriage but now I only sense feelings on comraderie towards you" even if that's the case for many families, as that would only cause grief to the couple. Not wanting to cause grief to yourself and your closest person is not selfishness. It's basic intelligence, found even in very simple life forms.
And the soldier in the war trench is different from most other people in that, his mind is down to the basic survival instincts, like a hunted animal's. Many soldiers would opt to throw the grenade back, but to me, the act of jumping on the grenade so it causes less harm to your fellow soldiers is pretty much selflessness, not selfishness.
I hope this helps you.
To an extent humans are indeed, inherently selfish, as far as the instinct of self-preservation is concerned. Yet, for better or worse, most of us are bombarded with situations/examples/teachings that altruism is a good thing and we should strive for it, and we have some altruism passed down in our genes too, from the former generations. So people are somewhere between the two extremes, and no human is completely selfish or selfless.
To the OP, your examples are somewhat flawed. Most people love their wife and kids. Even if they don't really love their wife, they'd still tell her they do, since they need her support. It would be stupid to tell her "I loved you in the first 2 years of our marriage but now I only sense feelings on comraderie towards you" even if that's the case for many families, as that would only cause grief to the couple. Not wanting to cause grief to yourself and your closest person is not selfishness. It's basic intelligence, found even in very simple life forms.
And the soldier in the war trench is different from most other people in that, his mind is down to the basic survival instincts, like a hunted animal's. Many soldiers would opt to throw the grenade back, but to me, the act of jumping on the grenade so it causes less harm to your fellow soldiers is pretty much selflessness, not selfishness.
I hope this helps you.
"Because I say so" is proof enough.The_Logician19 said:
And my "proof" was already said by at least three other people to give my own would have been the same exact thing.
It's stuff like this which can be debated, but I don't think humanity will ever come to a conclusion.
In general, people do care about themselves and want to survive. So I think, that on some level, every action is selfish. But that's not necessarily bad, right? It's just the way things roll.
In general, people do care about themselves and want to survive. So I think, that on some level, every action is selfish. But that's not necessarily bad, right? It's just the way things roll.
Well, self-interest and selfishness are two different things. The key difference in selfishness is making others pay a price for your own gain, to me. I see your example as an act of self-interest, because there wasn't really any significant price paid but it was still a good act.Kurokami said:
We are designed to be selfish. You will always value your own life more than anyone else's. You can choose not to do the selfish thing but your instincts will say otherwise.
I think a lot of people have already said it. Yes we humans kind of are, its a basic instinct in order to survive.
To the examples you pointed out: would you rather we not tell our loved ones we love them, or not save our friends from death by sacrificing ourselves?
I like to think that we exist in a reciprocating relationship - we help others because it makes us feel better, it makes them feel better, and it makes the future easier. Is that 'selfish', or just mutually beneficial and supportive of the species. 'Selfish' just has too many negative connotations imo :/ameatypie said:
Far too much supposition in those theories. Why not ask guys who have survived those sort of acts? They'll probably tell you that it was an instantaneous, spur of the moment decision to save the others around them - I doubt that he was considering the mental trauma of not taking action and being partially responsible for the deaths of others, or had a desire to die to 'repay a past deed'. It's pretty much an instinctual selfless act, is it not? Evolution-wise, it makes a sort of sense - sacrifice of the self to save the many, a powerful evolutionary trait, it could be argued, and the epitome of selflessness.ameatypie said:
I think we are inherently selfish, but there are some instances when doing the right thing is not beneficial to you or does not mean you will get anything out of it other than the self assurance that you did the right thing. This is not selfish in all cases because whatever it was that you did may have done more harm to you, outweighing the warm feeling you may have gotten. Simply put: a person with a defined code of honor or morality may do things that help others because they know its the right thing to do.