Isn't Everyone Selfish

[tommyedison]

From what I have seen (even though I haven't seen much), whenever people make any decision, they have something to gain out of it, whether or not that decision is in their self-interest in the long term.

For example, some people practice altruism to get to heaven, some because it gives them a sense of pride and some because it boosts their self-esteem.

Can we do something when we have absolutely NOTHING to gain out of it, in the short term or long term?

Or does Nature forbid it?

[y_feldblum]

One can in the short term; not in the long term, though: he would die too quickly. People need to achieve some basic values minimally to survive; consistent altruism or nihilism rejects even this minimalistic standard, and its practitioners must be kept alive by some external agent.

[tommyedison]

One can in the short term; not in the long term, though: he would die too quickly. People need to achieve some basic values minimally to survive; consistent altruism or nihilism rejects even this minimalistic standard, and its practitioners must be kept alive by some external agent.

I am not talking only of survival.

I am saying that can we be impeccably selfless, gaining absolutely nothing and still be psychologically stable assuming that we are kept alive by some external agent?

P.S. I presented the 'survival' argument against altruism while debating. I was told that an altruist does not keep himself alive and happy for himself but for others' e.g. his family members' happiness.

[realitycheck44]

For example, some people practice altruism to get to heaven, some because it gives them a sense of pride and some because it boosts their self-esteem.

Can we do something when we have absolutely NOTHING to gain out of it, in the short term or long term?

Or does Nature forbid it?

If you get something out of it, is it altruism? For instance, if it makes you happy to help other people, then it is in your rational self interest to do so. Altruism is when you do something out of a sense of duty, rather than your own happiness. Your reasons for doing something are the driving factor.

Something becomes altruistic when the happiness you get from doing it is less than the happiness you lost in doing it. Right?

I do not have an answer to your origional post; I will think about it. Could you please evalutate my understanding of altruism? I think I understand what it is, but want to be on the same page with everybody else when thinking about this question.

Thanks

Zak

[y_feldblum]

Psychologically stable? In a very perverse sort of way, perhaps. But keep in mind, under normal circumstances, reality will have killed him off first.

[ramKatori]

...some people practice altruism to get to heaven, some because it gives them a sense of pride and some because it boosts their self-esteem.

The play "Murder in the Cathedral" by T.S.Eliot addresses this. Beckett, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is presented with 4 temptations. This -- the idea that in doing good one ought not to be seeking to "feel good" about oneself -- is the final, and most difficult temptation for this "holiest of holy" altruist.

[tommyedison]

The play "Murder in the Cathedral" by T.S.Eliot addresses this. Beckett, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is presented with 4 temptations. This -- the idea that in doing good one ought not to be seeking to "feel good" about oneself -- is the final, and most difficult temptation for this "holiest of holy" altruist.

I don't know about the play.

My main question is that is it possible for us to do something without intending to gain and/or gaining ANYTHING either in the short-term or in the long-term (whether it be pride, self-esteem, honor, respect, etc.)?

I think it is irrelevant to this question, the primary goal of the action.

As I see it, every action must generate an emotion - either positive or negative.

So far, I have never seen anyone do something while feeling that what he is doing is disgusting.

So the only answer I can come up with is that only the most inhuman, emotionless, incapable of happiness or sadness being can do something without gaining anything.

Please correct me if I am wrong in my conclusion.

[Capitalism Forever]

Can We Be 100% Selfless?

Of course not. There is a contradiction between "be" and "selfless." You can pretend selflessness--but, by the law of identity, you are yourself. You can never get rid of yourself; even if you commit suicide, it will be an act of your self.

You can minimize your selfishness--which is what suicide achieves--but you cannot eliminate it. A person trying to attain 100% selflessness is a person attempting the impossible--his efforts are BOUND to be frustrated.

[Evangelical Capitalist]

I would suggest reading Nataniel Branden's article, "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" in VOS. He makes the case that a chosen action is not necessarily selfish merely because it is chosen; what matters is the motivation behind the choice. For instance, Peter Keating chose to become an architect. But he chose that career over becoming an artist merely to please his mother. That was selfless.

As to whether we can be selfless 100% of the time, I would say no. But the nature of evil is such that it does not need to be consistent. Murderers and theives may respect the lives and property of 99.9% of the people they meet, but they are nevertheless murderers and theives. An hypocrite need not conscientiously betray each and every one of his professed beliefs. A liar need not utter a falsehood with every word. An altruist need not act selflessly 100% of the time. To do so would be suicide.

The good, on the other hand, must be absolutely consistent. The good has nothing to gain from being mixed with the evil, and evil can only exist by the default of the good.

[tommyedison]

For instance, Peter Keating chose to become an architect.  But he chose that career over becoming an artist merely to please his mother.  That was selfless.

I thought he did it to be accepted by the majority and to "succeed" according to his twisted view.

Anyway, my question is answered. Thank you for the replies.

[AshRyan]

Moved from "Metaphysics and Epistemology" forum to "Ethics" forum.

[realitycheck44]

I

As to whether we can be selfless 100% of the time, I would say no.  But the nature of evil is such that it does not need to be consistent.  Murderers and theives may respect the lives and property of 99.9% of the people they meet, but they are nevertheless murderers and theives.  An hypocrite need not conscientiously betray each and every one of his professed beliefs.  A liar need not utter a falsehood with every word.  An altruist need not act selflessly 100% of the time.  To do so would be suicide.

I don't think that was the question. The question was is it possible to do an act that you have absolutely nothing to gain from (ie, a completly selfless act).

Captalism Forever: Thank you for stating the obvious that I completely missed.

[BreathofLife]

The closer you become, the more you hate life and the more you would want to destroy the things that embody that force and the more pain you would be in. It isn't possible to exist as 100% selfless because of the nature of man, the closer you get the more you want death and the death you'd want the most is your own.

[Sesklo]

For instance, if it makes you happy to help other people, then it is in your rational self interest to do so.

I just want to make a comment on this because it came up during a discussion with a professor. He argued that Mother Teresa achieved happiness through helping people, so she was actually being selfish.

I disagree with this because I think that happiness has a specific nature, and can only be achieved in certain ways. This is the flaw in the idea of the "selfish" person who goes around stealing and killing because all he cares about is his own happiness. It's like trying to argue that you want to achieve wealth by eating alot of carrots. Even if you really feel that something would help you achieve happiness, that does not necessarily make it so.

I don't think that the above quote is intended in this sort of relativist way, so I'm really not arguing against it- I just want to point out that in some circumstances, helping certain people can contribute to my happiness, but I don't think that it makes sense to generalize that it makes me happy to help other people. It seems that 'random acts of kindness' are sometimes against my interests, so I can't really count the general practice of helping people as a rational self-interested thing to do.

Because happiness is specific in nature, I don't really think I can achieve happiness by doing what gives me pleasure, or whatever I choose. I think that happiness is not the goal- it is a product of success at life, so self interest is primary, happiness is secondary. I discover first what is in my interests, then I pursue that, instead of thinking of what would make me happy and then calling pursuing that self-interested.

I would be interested in hearing what people think about this.

[Proud_to_be_SELFISH!]

From what I have seen (even though I haven't seen much), whenever people make any decision, they have something to gain out of it, whether or not that decision is in their self-interest in the long term.

For example, some people practice altruism to get to heaven, some because it gives them a sense of pride and some because it boosts their self-esteem.

Can we do something when we have absolutely NOTHING to gain out of it, in the short term or long term?

Or does Nature forbid it?

Like someone above said, the answer is in "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" by Nathaniel Branden in VoS.

Yes, we can do plenty of "somethings" where we have nothing to gain short or long term. Some people have been answering this question by implying that that something is continuous. In that case, wanting to live (a selfish desire) can not be achieved through selflessness. I'm interpreting the question as a single instantaneous decision. Continuously making ill-adviced selfless decisions would lead to self-destruction.

The difference is in the Objectivist egoism and Hobbesian egoism. Thomas Hobbes argued that everything one does is selfish because one wants to do it. However, the selfishness of an action is more objectively determined in why one wants to do it.

[Nxixcxk]

(Mod's note: Merged with a related thread - sN)

I'm still not convinced that everyone is not selfish--even after reading VOS "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" a couple of times. And, if I remember correctly, Rand had an article about it as well in her book "Philosophy, Who Needs It?" And I didn't find that very convincing either....so hopefully someone can shed some light on this topic for me.

After reading the article "Isn't Everyone Selfish?", I wrote some notes down. This is what I wrote:

Candidates for this view claim that everyone is selfish--regardless of the circumstances. For instance: Pretend a man is going to smoke a cigarette for the first time. He knows the cigarette is harmful to his health yet he wants to satisfy his curiosity. He wonders what's it like to inhale a puff of smoke and what will happen to him physiologically. The proponents of this view will say that even though the cigarette is dangerously harmful to his health, it is still in the man's interest to satisfy his curiosity--thus making him selfish.

This is their big mistake (here's my conclusion--but I'm unsure of it). The man's curiosity is totally unwarranted. No one should be curious about the effects of anything when they know exclusively that experimenting with such a substance is harmful to their health. Thus, it is not in this man's interest to fulfill an arbitrary "curiosity" and so he is not acting selfishly.

But then I have a possible objection to my own conclusion:

"Selfishness" simply means concerned with one's own interest. But by no means does the word "concern" have any correlation with the concept of being "rationally concerned" or "objectively concerned." So, one can said to be concerned with one's own interest and simply be misguided as to what they ought to regard as their own interests.

And then my objection to that is this:

The above paragraph is mindlessly messing with semantics regarding the word "concern," b/c when one uses the word "concern" he is already supposing that the concern is warranted--not arbitrarily created.

Anyhow, as anyone can see, I'm indefinitely confused, so I'd appreciate some help around this area.

PS....I can't really identify where my confusion is, but the same type of confusion ( I think) exists with other topics. Here are some more examples:

"Everyone, if the act is voluntary, does what they want to do." For instance, someone may not "want" to go to the dentist, but they end up going anyway b/c they don't want their cavities to progress into something worse.

Or....there was once a man who joked about everything and was only serious about one thing...joking.

There are more, but I can't think of them now.

Possibly it would be fair to say that we all try to act in our own self interest?

Edited September 17, 2006 by softwareNerd

[ex_banana-eater]

Possibly it would be fair to say that we all try to act in our own self interest?

No, because most altruists deliberately don't.

Your self-interest is independent of whims--persuing your self-interest is a rational endeavour. The easiest way for me to describe this is a concrete example:

A hedonist may think it is in his interest to hook a morphine drip to himself permanently, but that practice obviously contradicts his long term survival. It is not in his self-interest to do it, even though he illegitimatelywants to do it. Realistically, he would be in a drooling, brainless state for as long as he survived (not long).

Frequently, Ayn Rand and other Objectivist intellectuals use this more descriptive term: rational self-interest.

[EC]

I would add to ex-bananaeaters statement this: Your rational self-interest should only include things that take into account that your ultimate value is your *life*. So the things you choose to do must take that into account at all times. But not just preserving your life in the biological sense; it should also lead toward increasing your happiness without sacrificing yourself to others or others to you. Living your life as a man qua man as Ayn Rand says with all that that entails.

I also don't think trying a cigarette once or twice is immoral either, unless you already know that you have a tendency towards addictions. The effects of a few cigarettes would be negligible unless you have bad ashma like I do. It would be if you continued to smoke on a regular basis knowing the health risks that it would become immoral. And don't take that to mean that you can morally go around trying things regardless of risk just because your curious. There is a context involved in everything, and trying a cigarette once is negligible in risk compared to say shooting heroin.

It's Saturday night and I maybe immorally imbibed a few too many beers tonight so I hope my responce made some sense to you.

[Nxixcxk]

Hmm, I think your responses have helped somewhat.

So Mother Theresa would say that she never works in her self interest. But those who claim that everyone does, would say that it is in her interest to deny that she is working in her interest (i.e. she enjoys the psychological feeling of "helping" someone out which is why she chooses to self-sacrifices). Yet Objectivism would say that the acts she commits of self-sacrifice, even though that's what she wants to do, is not in her (rational) self-interest and thus she cannot be considered selfish.

Is this correct?

[JMeganSnow]

So Mother Theresa would say that she never works in her self interest.  But those who claim that everyone does, would say that it is in her interest to deny that she is working in her interest (i.e. she enjoys the psychological feeling of "helping" someone out which is why she chooses to self-sacrifices).

This is a bizarre contortion, mainly caused by taking a situation and trying to make it fit a predetermined answer.

If someone's only source of morality, enjoyment, etc. is other people they are not and cannot be called "selfish" . . . what self do they have? They may indeed enjoy it, but that doesn't make them selfish, it makes them sad and pathetic. They have put the slave collar on themselves, not from the threat of a whip or a gun, but of their own volition, out of terror of ever having to rely on themselves, decide for themselves, choose for themselves.

BE themselves.

No, everyone is not selfish.

[Free Capitalist]

Nick, I think you're confusing the concept of having selfish interests, with having a selfish life. Surely Mother Theresa has selfish interests, including the interest to deny herself a selfish life (according to her value system).

No one, not even Jesus, was completely selfless in every way imaginable. That's not the issue. The issue is whether everyone lives selfish lives, i.e. whether their ultimate values are personal self-fulfillment or not. And the answer is that clearly they do not. The intellectuals who reject self-interest, do so explicitly via altruism, and the regular folk who reject self-interest, do so implicitly by twisting it into hedonism and malicious treatment of others.

Edited February 14, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[Nxixcxk]

Nick, I think you're confusing the concept of having selfish interests, with having a selfish life. Surely Mother Theresa has selfish interests, including the interest to deny herself a selfish life (according to her value system).

YES!!! That is it! Thanks capitalist...I think that was my exact confusion. I must be able to distinguish the difference b/t having selfish interest and living a selfish life.

Thanks for making the complex so easy

[Harald]

Nick, I think the doctrine that is confusing you is the doctrine of psychological egoism. This doctrine states that since everyone does what they want - since everyone must metaphysically act on their _own_ motivation (or "inclination","drive"), then it follows that their act is selfish.

This "ethical" theory (it's not really a ethical theory at all but a metaaphysical theory of man's nature, more later) then says that since Mother Theresa acts on her own motivation she is then also an egoist. Ayn Rand, since her actions flowed from her _own_ motivation, must also be an egoist. And ditto a drug addict: when he inserts the needle into his own veins and shoots up for a few hours of escape from reality; he too does this because he is acting on his _own_ motivation (hence he is "selfish"). Bill Gates and Adolf Hitler must by the same reasoning also be considered selfish because they too act(ed) on their _own_ motivation (s).

Now, note that according to the theory of psychological egoism it is impossible to differentiate morally between a heroine-slave, Mother Theresa, Bill Gates, Adolph Hitler and Ayn Rand.

Which is a bit odd.

My thinking is that this very widespread theory ignores the fact that people can _think rationally_ and _choose_ their actions accordingly. It also clearly denies the fact that people really do things which hurt themselves, even by their own standards: you want to paint your room but do not bother to read the warning signs on the paint-bucket stating that it is toxic and will hurt you if you do not wear a protection mask. Clearly, hurting and poisoning yourself cannot be selfish or egoistic; yet this is exactly what the theory of psychological egoism implies.

In fact, psychological egoism is not an ethical theory at all; it does not aim to guide man's actions but tries (and fails) to describe why man does act as he does. Psychological egoism is a metaphysical theory which states that man has no choice in regard to his actions and therefore that no ethical theory is needed to guide man at all (which doesn't stop them from advancing their ethical doctrines). This "ethical" theory is in fact an attack on ethical theory par se (including altruism and self-sacrifice), it is deterministic and denies (implicitly) man's faculty of choice.

The totalitarian Thomas Hobbes's could be one example of a philosopher which uses a varaiant of psychological egoism to attack morality.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Harald

[Nxixcxk]

I think the doctrine that is confusing you is the doctrine of psychological egoism

Yeah, I think so too....this sounds familiar. I took a class on ethics once and if I remember correctly, the professor adhered to this, although I don't think he went so far as to say "b/c we always act in our own interest, there's no need for ethics," but that conclusion seems to necessarily follow.

Also, nice observation here as well

...it is deterministic and denies (implicitly) man's faculty of choice.

[acapier]

As was mentioned before whenever you're talking about selfishness from the Objectivist standpoint you must think "rational self interest". By that standard you must reject any emotional, "of the moment" whim and go on your own reason (does it benefit or destroy your existence?). It's okay if your reason fails you at times (people are not infallible), but once you are aware of your mistake you must correct it; to do otherwise would be worse than the original perpetration.