There are plenty of instances in nature of animals behaving in ways that seem to be to their detriment as individuals, but work to the advantage of the social group to which they belong. Ants, bees, termites, etc., for example, where the majority of the colony have evolved to forgo the opportunity to reproduce in lieu of supporting their sibling queen. Evolutionary theory has developed to account for this by the notion that what matters is not so much survival and reproduction of the individual, but survival and reproduction of the individual’s genes. In some cases, the best way to do this is by altruistic or self-sacrificing actions – the same genes are present to a greater or lesser degree in the individual’s siblings, cousins, etc. By promoting the success of their siblings’ offspring, such animals actually are able to achieve a higher degree of success at ensuring the reproduction of their genes than if they actually reproduced themselves (established empirically by Edward O. Wilson). The greater the degree of shared genetic material between individuals, the more likely altruistic behaviors are to develop. In a sense, of course, this does mean that even our altruistic behaviors are actually self-interested from the perspective of our genes, if not from the perspective of ourselves as individuals.
Any act can be described or defined as being rooted in selfishness, but sometimes the argument seems like a heck of a stretch - I mean if even the most noble attempt at altruism can be attributed to a desire to be admired or some such, what’s the point; the argument is universal because it is unfalsifiable.
Suppose I just invent a new motivation called Bleen and assert that everything -Everything- you do is ultimately motivated by Bleen.
You don’t think so? Well, you wouldn’t - of course you wouldn’t, because Bleen is like that - it affects you in precisely the manner necessary to make you think that you’re not acting on Bleen.
Sometimes ‘Bollocks’ is the most appropriate answer.
My ham handed example may have worked better if I had made Jonesey an atheist who expected only nothingness after his death. You may note that in no way did I imply he was a Christitian or for that matter any other known religion. I was trying for the opposite of those who believe their religion teaches that specific suicidal acts grant them a place in heaven.
Unlike a Bee I’m sure Jonesey has a much greater idea of self and the consequence of his actions. My point was that such an absolute definition of selfishness renders the word effectively meaningless.
Generally, I do not believe there are human actions which are not, to some extent, self-interested, but I do believe there are a great number of human actions which are not, to any extent, selfish.
It is impossible to describe such an action because a self-interest-motivated explanation can always be formulated and seemingly accepted, no matter how much of a stretch it is and no matter whether it was indeed the exact motivator of the action or in fact anywhere close.
If you really want to put the effort into it, I’m sure that you can find a selfish reason for anything that you have ever done/will do…but why? I really can’t see a point in trying to find a selfish reason for everything unless you are some sort of sick self abusive nutjob.
Of course, my reasons for not thinking to hard on this are entirely selfish. Don’t want to overtax the poor blob of jelly in my skull too early in the morning. I may have to walk and chew gum later.
Q: What about a man who risks his life to rescue a child from the path of an oncoming truck?
A: He probably did it because it’s his own child, so his genes would be perpetuated - selfish
Q: OK, but what if the child isn’t his own child?
A: Oh, well, he did it because he wants to be adored as a hero - selfish
Q: OK, but suppose he didn’t have time to plan that, but just saw the child in danger, and decided that the child ugently needed help
A: Even if he acted out of empathy, he was doing so because he wanted to spare himself the vicariously experienced suffering of the child - selfish
Q: OK, let’s imagine that he completely dispassionately and logically decided that the child should be moved out of harm’s way.
A: He’s still serving his own ideas of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ - selfish
And so on - it isn’t that everything we do is selfish, it’s that the definition of ‘selfish’ can be stretched to cover every scenario, except one; random undirected actions, which might not be selfish, but insane instead.
Sorry if I seem a little cynical about this, but it seems that even the most tenuously stretched answer will be settled upon, as long as it somehow includes selfishness as the motivator - it doesn’t have to be correct, only arguable.
If ‘genes’ cause a mom to give up food to her child, which isn’t a selfish action on a personal level, than why can’t ‘genes’ and the inclinations they cause in our personalities lead us to other selfless actions on the big, personal level. (Not talking about Dawkin’s selfish gene here - but US, the formed human)
I think Mangetout is right. If you’re willing to stretch the definition far enough, yes, everything we do can be considered selfish.
My favorite example in these threads (yes, this has come up before here) is from my single days. I would often go hang out at clubs, either alone or with friends. On occasion, I would see a couple of girls sitting at a table, looking a bit despondent, just sort of staring off into space or having idle chit-chat. I’d instruct the waiter/waitress to take them drinks of their choice, but to not reveal who sent them under any circumstances. I didn’t do this in front of my friends, nor did I ever approach these women later.
It usually had the effect of giving the girls something to talk about, and I’d sometimes notice them smiling and looking around the room. Later in the evening, I’d invariably see them out dancing, laughing, and generally having a good time. Just the simple fact that they’d started smiling had produced a chain reaction that I’d never expected.
Obviously, if willing to stretch it really far, you could probably attribute it to some ulterior motive, but my only motive was for them to have fun.
I still believe that ‘selfish’ is entirely the wrong word. No, not everything we do is selfish. Selfishness usually implies self-interest to the exclusion of any other interest. ‘Self-interested’ behavior is arguably ubiquitous (a la mangetout), but not ‘selfish’ behavior.
Could the school of thought you’re trying to recall be Hedonism? It’s what I learned about in Philosophy 101 (way back when philosophy was just TMed).
It seems that Hedonists resent that they are regarded as mere pleasure seekers. They insist that Hedonists simply seek to avoid pain, and that all of our decisions are based on this principle.
Example.
I’m on my way to the corner store for some cigarettes. I have only enough money for one pack. A down-and-outer hits me up for meal money. I refuse to donate. I might feel pain for being so selfish, but it would be even more painful to without those damned butts.
When confronted by that same bum, you give him him the meal money, but only because it would be more painful for you to refuse his request than it would be to go without smokes.
Of course, this sparked a very lively discussion. It was particularly frustrating because the ineluctable point of the whole thing is there is no such animal as an admirable person. People do whatever gives them the least pain, whether that person is Saddam Hussein or Mahatma Gandhi (spelling?).
Take all the examples of the choices suggested in the previous posts and put them in terms of avoidance of pain. Can you refute the Hedonist’s argument?
I asked my professor if he could. “No,” he replied, “I simply choose not to believe it.”
I agree with Mangetout: everything we do can be construed as selfish, but that doesn’t mean that was our actual motivation.
And assuming that everyone’s motivations are selfish so you can feel better about yourself is, well, selfish
People make self-defeating choices all the time: blowing off class, smoking, dating abusive jerks, practicing unsafe sex, driving to a bar to get drunk (that one never made sense to me: how were you planning on getting home without driving drunk?) So how can we assume that people always nefariously have their own best interests at heart?
I think there’s a certain level of “do-gooders” who are only in it, and aware they’re in it, only for selfish reasons: corporation owners that donate money to their own non-profits to avoid taxes, for example. That one makes my ears bleed. But who am I to say that Bill Gates is only donating large sums of money and computer equipment to avoid taxes, increase the use of his product, or to make himself feel better? The answer that he *does * avoid taxes, *does * increase product use, and it *can * make him feel better doesn’t mean that that’s why he’s doing it. It only means that those *could * be reasons he’s doing it.
I have a hard time believing that political martyrs are in it for the perks. Or doctors who leave thriving practices in the States to donate time and skills in war-ridden, plague-infested areas of Africa. Or people who choose to teach in inner city schools with no supplies, no budgets and barely literate students. Just because they could all potentially get warm fuzzies doesn’t mean they’re doing it for warm fuzzies.
People will act “selfishly” according to evolutionary psychology in the same way that people will act “rationally” in economics. ie: it’s not a perfect model of human behaviour but it is incredibly powerful as a tool to understand human motivation. In this case, “selfish” means “any action taken which, to the best of my knowledge would increase the chances of my survival and my offsprings survival and their offsprings survival unto the nth generation”.
So while many of our innate social structures can be explained in selfish terms, why we are social creatures, why incest is taboo and why it varies between cultures, why we commit adultery, why men are built more powerfully than women and a whole host of mindblowingly varied social phenomena, it can’t be mustered to explain why you chose a snickers bar over a mars bar at the supermarket.
I shall try one more time to rescue the useful, disparaging term from Randian usage:
Bolding emphasis mine.
It is very difficult to suggest all actions are selfish.
However,
Note that they are not synonyms. I’m not trying to be a dictionary geek or win a debate with one. I am trying to preserve the meaning of a word that serves a very real purpose: to disparage those who think only of themselves. If we push “selfish” into a synonym for “self-interested”, how do we characterize those who think only of themselves?
Self-interest is not a negative thing. Very few thinkers throughout time have looked upon it as a lesser interest. Most people accept some form of self-interest as obviously correct. Similarly, very few thinkers throughout time have looked upon selfishness as a higher interest. Most people reject most forms of selfishness as obviously improper.
Given that that distinction is useful and worth preserving, IMO, I can answer affirmatively that not everything we do is selfish, but it is [usually] trivial to create hypotheses which suggest that any particular action is self-interested.
I sponsor a child through World Vision and once had a socialist tell me that I only sponsor the child to make mysel feel good (quite true) and would better serve him by not sponsoring him and encouraging revolution (I don’t really know). His point was that thoughtless “good” acts could serve to worsen the long term situation of the recipient in the selfish interests of the donor. Mind you he used to feel that Mother Teresa’s work maintained the staus quo for the poor for her own aggrandizement and that Bishop Desmond Tutu was the enemy of black South Africans.
