On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Patience <[email protected]> wrote
And they have one thing in common, looking out for ones self. Drives font > include looking out for others ... At the core of all of that is that they are looking out for themselves and > their happiness ergo selfishness. ... Look at why humans in general do what they do: breed, survive, succeed, find > happiness = looking out for ones self. That is definitely an oversimplification, imho. Looking out for yourself is not necessarily selfish. Actions themselves are not selfish without taking a closer look at the motivations for the actions. When the plane suddenly loses pressure and the masks drop, a parent who places the mask on themselves first is NOT selfish. If you're hungry, and you eat, you're not being selfish. If you're hungry, and you've already had your designated tribal "quota" of food, but you decide to take someone else's portion because of your hunger, leaving them at risk in the process, then you're selfish. But the drive "hunger", in general, is not "selfish". Survival is not selfish. A person who attempts to save their own life, could not be called selfish unless their motivation lead them to place the value of their own life above some recognized common good. If a person defends themselves against a murderer, would you really consider the victim to be a selfish person? "Selfish" is a word that is filled with moral connotations. In fact, the word in and of itself tends to be used as a moral judgement more often than not. Basic human drives (eat, breed, live) are amoral outside of the context in which they come up. When a person has to go to the bathroom (a basic human need), and they excuse themselves to use the facilities, would anyone actually say "He felt the need to go to the bathroom, so he decided to be selfish and actually do it"? I don't think so. Taking care of yourself is NOT being selfish. When you are concerned primarily or exclusively with yourself, placing yourself above all others, then you're selfish. one "self sacrifial act" does not make someone selfless. can someone do > that all their life? It is impossible for ANY human being to live an entirely "selfless" life, because we all have "selves". The problem here is a narrow view of what it means to be selfless (and selfish). If, in general, a person places other people's interests above their own, you can say in general that the person is selfless. But guess what...that person has discrete moments throughout any given day when they look out for their own interests. This does not take anything away from their selfless nature. Mutual Fund Manager: "Those SELFISH people moved their money to a different fund when ours started performing poorly. Don't they realize I have a family to feed?" <--- This is the sort of problem you wind up getting into when you have too narrow a definition of "selfish" and "selfless". By your definition, the people should have left the money in the fund, because to "look after themselves" would have been a selfish act. The logical paradox here is that the OTHER person is just as selfish by your definition; the manager's opinion that those folks should have left the money in the fund for his benefit is, by your definition, a selfish desire.
