Seems to me that saying “selfish” is always bad IS oversimplifying a complex concept. People who say “I’m selfish but good” are essentially saying that there are shades of selfishness/generosity and that this schema allows for someone to have selfish tendencies while still having a moral compass.
If you put a “BAD” label on selfishness, you do not give a person who admits to being selfish room to be a good person. Thus rendering the OP’s second question redundant.
There is a difference between thinking everything is black and white, and on the other hand, thinking that there is value in clear and accurate use of the language.
I’m not putting it there–I’ve argued that it is there (in our language) independently of how either of us may want to use the word. You even acknowledged (I thought!) that my argument works.
Sounds like an “unnuanced” thought to me–you’re assuming that if selfishness is always bad, everyone who is selfish is always bad. That assumption is false. Things are more nuanced than that–people can be both selfish and good, even if selfishness is itself always bad.
The topic is a complicated one. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t speak clearly and accurately–indeed it’s a topic like this which calls for the greatest amount of rigor. That’s not black and white thinking–it’s a call for examination of every shade available.
I also think we can get lost in the weeds of semantics instead of focusing on what people in this thread are communicating when they say they are selfish. The word certainly has a negative connotation, but it appears that many people in this thread don’t see is a conflict between good and selfish.
Perhaps we can ask people what exactly they mean and we can then determine if “selfish” is really the best word to describe their behavior or thought processes?
Indeed—and what I think is happening here is some Puritanical strain of thought is infecting their thinking. Don’t really have the resources to defend that claim in any particular case, so I didn’t mention it before.
I like that idea in a way, but I feel like “my job is done here” as long as I’ve had this conversation laid out in the thread for people to consider (or not) as they will.
But then, I don’t think of being selfish as being a negative thing. It’s perceived in society as a negative thing, and I’m aware of that, but I don’t agree with that perception.
Now that said, being basically selfish really impacts my opinion of my basic goodness/niceness. It’s pretty well established that being “good” or “nice” means that you do things to help or uplift others without consideration of their impact on yourself. To be selfish means that it’s pretty impossible to fit that definition of good.
I’d have to say I’m really agreeing with Skald’s post - I DO a lot of good things, but I don’t consider the actions to be intrinsically good, because I have to force myself to do them because they are socially acceptable actions, or I do them from selfish motivations.
In addition, because it isn’t a natural impulse, I therefore can’t be a naturally good person, because a naturally good person would do good things automatically, without mental bitching about how put-upon they are by life.
All humans are inherently selfish. What makes us good is our desire to fight that tendency. What makes you bad is when you give up fighting that tendency. Every single evil thing in the world is caused by someone acting selfishly.
I think it is therefore quite accurate to say that you are both selfish and good. The first term is acknowledging how you would be without effort. The second is acknowledging that you are unhappy with that state and fight it. Both are equally who you really are.
In fact, I’m very wary of people who say they are unselfish. In my experience, it’s far more likely that they are selfish but lack awareness of it. The only way they could possibly not be selfish is if they had actually 100% succeeded in their good journey.
And being unselfish and evil is, of course, impossible.