Selfishness versus Humanity...

[DÛke]

...

Ok, so I've had this long and twisted conversation with Multani on AIM.

In Multani's opinion: the act of survival is simply and equally is the act of being selfish. The example he stated was: buying yourself something is simply being selfish, because you could have given the money you used to someone who needs it more. He basically says that if you are a human, you must be selfish -- there's no way around it.

In my opinion: the act of purely caring, and loving others with devotion is enough to prove that one is not selfish. Back to his example: if I buy myself something, and have already given all I can to others, than I'm not being selfish. This pure love must come out of the pure heart and the devotion...not caring to portray an image, or anything else. Even more, not expecting a reward in return. I say that there are humans that are a live, happy, and are not selfish.

Most of us have acted on selfish impulses, but is it true that no human can exist without being selfish?

I stated that I'm not selfish because I care equally for all, out of pure love and devotion...not because I want to be that way, not because I'm expected something, because I am like that.

He states, as a counter-statement, that I must care 100% for all in order to be not selfish. However, still, if you'd buy yourself something, you're being selfish. I stated that such an act is being selfish towards oneself, not satisfying simple survival needs. Multani insists upon his statements.

I want the CPA to get on this, and define "selfish" out of experience...

Multani's definition: being selfish is to be a human.

My definition: being selfish is to gain anything -- anything -- at the cost of others.

Multani's definition of not being selfish: not being selfish is not being human, therefore, it such definition cannot exist.

My definition of not being selfish: not being selfish is to give all you can to those who need it. To love and respect all as equals out of pure devotion...not for anything, but for being yourself: a loving and caring person. One must keep in mind though, that it's not the responsibility of one person to take the care of the life of billions of others...

What do you think?

What is selfishness?

Is Multani right, that there's no such thing as non-selfishness?

Is my definition of not being selfish right?

Multani really angered me, and this thread is the resultant.

Multani even seems to forget the simple psychology of the whole argument. He asked me if I cared for Almindhra, and of course, I said yes. He expected me to care for those whom I have not seen nor have been in contant with as much as I care for those whom I've seen in real life...otherwise, I'm being selfish. Basically, one must care for every single living individual on earth 307%, and not care about one's self at all...in order to fulfill the simple act of *not* being selfish.

Is that right?

 

[Spiderman]

I'm not sure what you guys mean by "survival" here. Are you lacking for food and shelter in this example?

I think being selfish is to have/get something for yourself when someone else needed it more. If they don't need it, then getting it for yourself is fine.

 

[Daggertooth]

Selfishness is part of human nature. To survive we must be selfish to a degree. It is the Degree's of selfishness that should be looked at.

Though I do believe that there can be some cases of complete unselfishness, those cases are very rare and are exceptions to the rule.

Dang! out of time......more Later.


Daggertoot

 

[DÛke]

...

Spiderman, by survival, I simply mean "living." Multani states that there's no such thing as living without being selfish...which completely angers me because I have known so many great, unselfish people.

Dagertooth:

Though I do believe that there can be some cases of complete unselfishness, those cases are very rare and are exceptions to the rule.

There's no "rule" here. Just because you've had bad experiences with selfish people, doesn't mean you should apply that specific experience as knowledge -- not all knowledge is experience. At least, you've stated that there are "exceptions;" there are "cases of complete unselfishness," and that's my whole point -- the point that Multani seemed to argue completely against.

By the way Spiderman, I don't watch Friends much, so I'm not sure...

 

[Apollo]

I tend to have to agree with Multani. At some point, everybody is selfish.

You have a computer, obviously. There are people that are starving in the world. You don't need that computer to live. Those people could really use the money from that computer. So basically, you're being selfish. Not that I blame you; I think it is part of human nature, and I'm doing it too.

I think people have the capability of doing great good, and can perform acts of extreme unselfishness. But everybody is selfish most of the time.

 

[EricBess]

I think there are elements of both arguments. There is selfishness in human nature, certainly. I doubt there are many people (perhaps only one) that always put the needs of others above their own.

I don't think that you can say the act of buying yourself something is selfish. Certainly, when I eat dinner, there are a lot of starving people who probably need the food more than I do. Am I being selfish to eat, then? If I never eat, I have no strength. If I have no stength, I can do little to benefit others. By eating, I can put myself in a position that I can actually help others more than if I hadn't eaten.

I have a laptop. Is that selfish? I use it so I can program, so I can earn money, so I can buy food, so I can feed my family. Is that selfish?

I think that overendulgence is selfish. Putting your own needs above the needs of others in such a way that it does more harm than good. That's selfish. Indulging in acts that have no beneficial purpose and can only serve to harm yourself and others, that's selfish.

I think the most generous people in the world are selfish at times, but it is a matter of degree. It's not that the people you see are not selfish at times, Duke. It's that those people strive to surpress selfish desires. By doing so, they are good, generous people.

 

[Spiderman]

DUke: So not use "living" instead of "survival"? The latter has a very different implied connotation...

It's an episode where Joey (Matt LeBlanc) and Phoebe (Lisa Kudrow) argued over whether there are truly unselfish acts. Phoebe claimed that there aren't, because every good act you do makes you feel good, which is selfish. Joey was trying to prove her wrong (I think).

In any case, I'm agreeing with EricBess more than what Apollo was saying. If you can directly affect someone who needs it more, I think it can be considered selfish. But trying to compare feeding yourself with people across the world, that's a stretch.

 

[DÛke]

...

Apollo:

I tend to have to agree with Multani. At some point, everybody is selfish.

And I never said otherwise. I *was* selfish. I grew out of it. Somehow, however, to Multani...there's no such thing as growing out of being selfish -- that opinion is dead wrong -- that's saying that experience does not help enlighten an individual.

Ericbess:

I don't think that you can say the act of buying yourself something is selfish. Certainly, when I eat dinner, there are a lot of starving people who probably need the food more than I do. Am I being selfish to eat, then? If I never eat, I have no strength. If I have no strength, I can do little to benefit others. By eating, I can put myself in a position that I can actually help others more than if I hadn't eaten.

And I agree completely. Even more, if you think about it, not buying yourself what you need is being selfish upon yourself. When talking to Multani, I stated that there should be a balance between "giving" and "taking." But I shouldn't have, because he entered the mathematical world where an exact calculation should be taken to balance giving versus taking. I told Multani that it doesn't matter how much you give, because if you give just what you can -- what you are able to afford -- but you give it with complete sincerity, love, and care, than you have done a favor...and such a gift alone can balance out any selfishness -- as long as the gift was given truly from the heart. Multani disagrees.

Ericbess:

I think the most generous people in the world are selfish at times, but it is a matter of degree. It's not that the people you see are not selfish at times, Duke. It's that those people strive to suppress selfish desires. By doing so, they are good, generous people.

I agree. However, are you stating that there are no plain generous people? Basically -- there's no one out there that grew out of selfishness after his or her experiences? I think that's hard not to exist...

Spiderman:

In any case, I'm agreeing with EricBess more than what Apollo was saying. If you can directly affect someone who needs it more, I think it can be considered selfish. But trying to compare feeding yourself with people across the world, that's a stretch.

And once again, I agree. There's certain psychology that should apply: how can I effect anyone in China, even if I want to, if I don't have the money to go there? So what should I do with the money? Suppose I already have given money and aid for all those who need it around me...and suppose I have giving it out of pure sincerity: basically, as Multani would view this...it would be better throwing the money rather than buy *myself* something with it. I can *never* buy myself anything as long as there is someone out there in the *universe* that needs it more than I. Basically...we all should starve to death.

One more thing, Multani is taking this issue on very moral, sociable basis. However, would all these answers be the same if I choose sex as the main subject? Nobody should have sex with anyone, because that's being selfish for at least one reason, one of them being that there is someone out there who needs sex more than your partner.

Let's stop reproduction too...

Stop getting an education, stop obtaining knowledge…because someone else needs it. We all should be ignorant people…

To all of those who have jobs: stop it. Somebody else needs that job, so quit. Basically – nobody should get a job, because there’s always someone in the universe who probably needs it more.

Ericbess, you’re married. You shouldn’t have…I probably would find your very attractive…so you’re being selfish, since you have taken your wife all to yourself. You must share her with the world…

This website should have not been built, because I’m sure somebody wants the URL. Ed is very selfish…

I shouldn’t have any friends, because someone out there could use those friends.

I shouldn’t have a life, because someone out there needs this life…

I shouldn’t have been born, because somebody else could have been born in my place…

Man on man…I’m very selfish.

In my opinion, Multani takes the whole concept of actual and logical self-restraint out the window. There are certain psychologies that should apply to his statements. Nobody is a god -- no one has to take care of the millions who suffer...but if anyone does out of pure love, than that person is special and is not selfish simply for caring for someone else...anyone else...

 

[Zadok001]

"My definition: being selfish is to gain anything -- anything -- at the cost of others."

The key phrase there is "At the cost of others." Now, almost any action can be said to cost others something. Allow me to illustrate. Let's say I stand up and walk across my room right now. No harm done, right? Well, it would take me an extra twenty seconds or so to post this, and anyone reading this read in the meantime would have been unable to benefit from my infinite wisdom. (*tries to control hysterical laughter*) So by walking across my room, I am doing something at the cost of a possible "other."

I believe a similar logic set can be applied to any action. (i.e., I could be out feeding the homeless instead of sitting here typing a post, so typing this post is at the cost of the homeless.)

Obviously, those two claims border on the absurd, but they nonetheless exist. So is everyone selfish? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No, not until that selfishness is taken to an extreme, or at least past a certain point. Where is that point? Subjective.

We are selfish, of course. But that's not a bad thing.

 

[Spiderman]

Is "being selfish" in fact, bad?

 

[DÛke]

...I knew someone would make my definition seem incorrect. Zadok, let me rephrase my definition of being selfish:

...to be selfish is to level yourself up at the cost of others. Leveling up could be as important as getting a good job, or winning a casual Magic tournment...if you have "gained" something at the cost of others, that's selfish.

For some reason, I think I'll need to rephrase that definition shortly, but let's see what happens for now.

So now, to restate one of Zadok's examples, Zadok's typing his post is not a selfish act, because he didn't really gain anything, nor did he "level himself up" in the process...he simply just typed something to share with us.

Spiderman...your question has so many answers. The variety comes from the situation. What kind of selfishness are you talking about? Zadok's examples of selfishness do *not* count as selfishness. Fulfilling ones needs and desires should not count that way...but gaining something, leveling yourself up (sounds like an RPG, doesn't it?), or making yourself feel better at the cost of others...that's selfish.

I'm sorry, but I just think Multani is 307% wrong...and the bad thing, he's so rude, that he disconnects as we're talking...leaving me no chance to vent off what I fully have to say. I've experienced all kinds of people here in the CPA...but someone with that level of rudeness is unbelievable.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

I got all the way to Zadok's post before I found an argument I could agree with.

Is this a discussion over the definition of selfishness? That's pretty broad. All of the definitions i've sen here are applicable at one time or another.

Or are we debating (a better topic) whether there truly is an "unselfish act?" I think there is not. When we do things to help others, we help ourselves.

 

[Spiderman]

I think your definition is a bit incomplete; I would add "at the cost of unknowing others" or something because in your examples, if you win a tournament, you're not being selfish. Everyone is striving for the same goal; they know what the stakes are.

If you "rip" a newbie in a trade and get his Mox Ruby for your Craw Wurm, with him not knowing the value of his cards, THAT'S selfish. If the person knows the value of his cards and doesn't care, then it's not (which apparently has happened with Isty).

I don't really know if my question has certain situations tagged onto it, but if most everyone here is saying humans are inherently selfish just because we do things for ourselves at times when we could be doing things for others (whatever those may be), but it's not a life or death situation, is being selfish really bad? I guess because it has such a negative connotation is why I listed my definition way above, but if one accepts the others arguments, then this question comes to mind.

 

[DÛke]

...

Yeah, but I'm *not* selfish by any means!

Multani insists that if I'm a human, then I must be selfish. I disagree, because I think that I'm a living proof -- I'm not selfish. If you consider my actually being alive as a selfish act, than be it!

Chaos Turtle, this may come as a shock to you, but...

Chaos Turtle:
...there truly is an "unselfish act?" I think there is not.

...that has got to be one of the many less intelligent comments I've heard all week. First, you should have explained what kind of selfishness does your statement apply to...

Ok, so there are two kind of selfishness, the actual selfishness and the "good selfishness," the one that makes us help others and do good deeds...is that what I'm missing? And, if one can completely restrain him or herself from committing any acts of "bad selfishness," than is that person still selfish -- even though he didn't commit the acts but *have* thought of them? That’s somewhat a point Ericbess brings, but only now I notice it…

This is so stupid. Basically, Multani wants a new word invented to define the "good selfishness" versus just "selfishness." That's the whole argument, as I see it...

So Spiderman, to answer your question, whether "selfishness" is actually a bad thing, than I'll answer it this way: since I made it clear that there are 2 kinds of selfishness, the good selfishness is...good. The bad selfishness is, well, bad.
.
..and just to let you know, this whole "selfishness" deal I got with Multani descended from a conversation about world politics, and the media...

 

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

DÛke: I have mainly one question to ask: Are you selfish?

I don't care what your answer is; ask yourself, and find the answer. Use whatever definition you want, or feel is appropriate.

Now, you know whether or not you are selfish. Do you really know whether anyone else is or is not selfish?

If so, then I presume you came to that assumption based on some definition of "selfish" and some knowledge of what that person did or did not do.

Would that person define him/herself as "selfish?" Think about it.

It's hard to tell for sure, without inserting your own judgment. There may have been some action by that person that you don't know, or maybe the person uses a different definition of "selfish," or maybe the person is thinking things that you couldn't understand, because they'd be out of context.

The only person about whose levels or selfishness you can be completely sure is you. You are/are not selfish (circle one).

You can't tell for sure whether or not Multani is truly selfish. You can't tell for sure whether or not I am truly selfish. But by the same token I can't tell for sure whether you or Multani are selfish, and Multani can't tell for sure whether I am or you are selfish.

If you think you are unselfish, that should be good enough for you, unless you think differently about things than I do - which is 308% true.

So what's the point?

I don't know. Oh well.

 

[Gizmo]

Im selfish. If I didnt get satisfaction from helping others I wouldnt do it.

EVERYTHING we ever do of our own volition is done on a self-serving impulse. If I give something away it is because I want to feel that I am a good person. Saying that you love somebody is a selfish act - it`s an attempt to gain ownership rights - all you are doing is investing an amount of your self-worth in their perception of you, but however much you give with one hand, you take with another.

In the end a judgement on if you are selfish or not depends on how spiritual/cerebral you want to make the discussion. If it concerns only physical items or displays of giving, then it is possible to say that you are being unselfish, but I think it is an incomplete understanding of the interrelationship between the giver and the reciever to think that it is anything but a two-way transaction.

It is not in the nature of any lifeform to give things away, because the single most primal element in all lifeforms is to ensure the continuation of your DNA to the next generation. If we give things away it is because the act of giving, whether gratitiude is expressed or not, is a psychological need that you have to have fulfilled.

I was at my most depressed and unstable when I had nobody I could give things to, and this need went unfulfilled. As soon as I found somebody who I was able to lavish generosity on my life straightened out and I was much happier.

I enjoy giving and helping other people, and I enjoy giving because I am selfish and I have a deep need to give. The act is benign, but the motivation is self-serving.

 

[Apollo]

I totally, 427.236% agree with Gizmo. You might pretend you are doing something because you are a wonderful person, but basically you do it for self-satisfaction (and it's quite obvious that DUke has gotten plenty of that).

DUke, I knew when I posted that example that you would do 2 things:

1. Completely ignore the actual point with the computer
2. Twist it and make totally absurd other, sarcastic examples that make absolutely no sense (like when you sarcastically remarked that we should stop reproduction)

I highly doubt that there is nobody around you that is not starving, homeless or whatever. Yet you have a computer. I don't think you are surviving based on earnings from your computer. So you have a computer you don't really need, while other people are dying and might eat with the money from your comp. So you're being selfish.

But like I said, there's nothing wrong with it. It's human nature. You are not devoid of selfishness, nor is anybody else. Forget about different kinds of selfishness.

 

[DÛke]

...

TICM, yes, I am selfish -- in that I enjoy serving people. I'm selfish because I like to be told how wonderful I am, how "hell of a great job" I've done...and so on. If that's a certain concept of being selfish, than forgive me, because I just entered this state of mind. I'm a virgin to it...and, I 307% think you're intelligent, so post more often!

Apollo, forgive me for being myself. I must admit, I too agree with Gizmo.

Gizmo, I agree with you. It's basically like I said, good selfishness versus bad selfishness. You're right Gizmo...you're right. I know this will make you more "selfish," but...you said exactly what I wanted someone to say so I can agree.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

Well it tough to determine whether you're most recent post is sarcastic, DÛke. If it's not, then congrats on seeing the point.

If it is, well... I can't say I'm surprised, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Again, I think we're suffering from a lack of understanding about what we're really debating. At one glance, it's a definition of the word "selfish," in which case you could be right, since most dictionaries define it as something like "being concerned mainly with one's personal advantage." On the other hand, the discussion really seems to be about whether it's possible to act comletely selflessly, in which case I stand by my statement, regardless of how stupid you think it is.

So using the commonly-accepted definition of "selfish," we can also define "selfless" as "being concerned mainly with others' personal advantage." Indeed, there are probably many examples of people do exhibit selfless behavior. But why do they? Because of some other personal motivation, even if it's something as simple as feeling good about it.

Perhaps what you mean when you say that you are not a selfish person, is that you are not predominantly selfish. Meaning, you care at least as much for others as you do yourself. This is a laudable personality trait. Be proud of yourself.

At any rate, I think it's been made plain enough, there is no such thing as an utterly unselfish act. At least, not by any rational person. For any thing a person would do that seems unselfish, one could find a selfish motivation behind it. The only thing I could even imagine that would come close to the truly unselfish act would be a person giving his or her own life to save a stranger's. But I believe that in almost any case where this has happened (though we can never know for certain, can we?) the person does so with a religious/spiritual motivation, and expects some reward hereafter.

 

[Spiderman]

..and just to let you know, this whole "selfishness" deal I got with Multani descended from a conversation about world politics, and the media...

Now why am I not surprised about that...