are we ultimately selfish beings?

This is a question I've been struggling with lately. It would be interesting from a purely philosophical standpoint to discuss this question, but I also need to come up with some answers that put my mind at easy in an emotional way (I really have been a little disturbed by this thought lately).

If anybody is familiar with the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, you'll understand where I'm coming from. He has this image of two people living off basic resources that are very limited (like food and water) and he brings up the question: if there is only enough resources for one of these people to live and the other must therefore die, what will they do? Will they be altruistic in the name of what's morally right and sacrifice themselves, or will each one fight the other to the death (or leave the other to die) in order to preserve his own life? He answers that it will be the latter.

Now I know we aren't like this 99% of the time. We are willing to suffer small sacrifices for the sake of the wellbeing of others, but what I'm wondering is, is this self-sacrifice always conditional? That is, conditional on the longrun benefits that we will reap for ourselves? Can the wellbeing of others be an end goal in itself that we each are capable of understand the importance of and even wanting it?

 

As long as our consciousness is limited to the lumpy, bloody mass known as the body and the fragile, confused caged animal known as the mind, then sure, most of us have an extent of selfish behaviour. The moment you make yourself feel good, in someone's eyes, that will always be selfish. But being selfish is like being right or wrong, just an opinion, an assertive observation.

 

I'm going to go ahead and answer this personally.

I know I'd like to think that I'd be all noble and kill myself to let the other person live, but then that would also depend on how important that other person was to me, and whether or not I respected them. I think it would be easier to do something good for them if it was someone I liked, or loved, or whatever... and I can think of a few people over the years that I probably would have given my life for if the time came to choose between us... but I'd probably die for a total stranger before I'd die for someone I knew to be a jerk, or for someone who I hated even though I know deep down inside they're probably still okay. There are even a few people I wouldn't give water to even if there was plenty for both of us and that other person was going to die without it. There are even some people I would hand a canteen full of hydrochloric acid and tell them it's water just to see if they actually drank it. So I guess that's pretty selfish.

But anyway, I suppose it's possible to be completely selfless if you believe in a higher power-- if your faith is strong enough, you can get to a point where you're doing everything because you believe it's what God wants you to do, and your own feelings no longer come into account. You still have them, but they're not as important as doing what you know is right.

 

That's interesting, but I'm not quite sure what it means. Would you mind elaborating?

 

The Leviathan was an interesting book, but I found Hobbes' description of the human emotions and actions as most inciteful.


The problem lies in the fact that a person, more times than not, believes that the best way for them to be of any use to this world is to be alive and empowered. Its not that they are selfish, its that they can not imagine any good coming from their failure as a human.

If you like Hobbes, read Machiavelli's "The Prince". He states that humans are naturally opportunistic, and that it is only logical to take advantage of another person if it serves to advance yourself.

I believe that people have already discovered that protecting each other is more beneficial than taking advantage of each other. They just need to realise it on a larger scale.

 

I dont mean to be obtrusive, but I believe I understand him.

When one makes something for his/herself, another may very well call it a selfish act. But that would be the other's opinion, it is not necessarily true. Who is to say what acts are selfish, and which are not? It's entirely subjective.



going back to the OP:
I know for sure that if I were put in a situation where life is hard, survival is my priority, not making friends. So a stranger on my island, squandering all my resources will surely stumble upon an untimely death. I would laugh in the face of those who'd call me selfish for trying to stay alive. Perhaps it's because I find it most rational that I have just this life to live, and I intend to make the most of it.

 

Exactly Whispering!
Thank you, I didnt even notice gib responded to my post :tongue: Not obtrusive at all my friend.
To even further elaborate, what I meant by the word 'assertive' is that the person who considers another person's action selfish, is putting themself on a higher moral level temoprarily. Now it is not my place to judge wether or not the assertive observation is selfish either, I sure am plenty guilty of it. Just clarifying what I mean, because sometimes, judgement is just as damaging to the self as a so called selfish behavior.

 

Whispering and relayer,


Thanks for the insight. That's something I really hadn't considered. It's like if I went out and rented a movie just for my own entertainment. My neighbor might call it selfish because 1) I did it for myself without him in mind and 2) he might have his own opinions on the nature of movies - he might think that movies are such a bad influence on society (as opposed to books or social interaction for example) that anybody who watches them for their own entertainment is being selfish because their not thinking of the long-term wellfair of society in general.

 

^ yup or that the money you spend on entertainment could go to towards some charity or the like.

 

I think people are born selfish to a point; ever see toddlers fighting over toys, food, etc.?
But I think as we grow up we see its in our well being and everyone else's to be kind and generous.
I think when it comes to survival people are usually selfish, but can be noble sometimes depending on the morals that they have learned.

 

what's the point of being "noble" in a survivalistic situation?

 

Our ego is a instinct, it helps us to survive in this physical world.

But we should question ourselfs, will one find satisfaction in surviving?
Isn't there more beyond this physical barrier?

This all comes back to the question : What is our purpose?

Everyone should make this out for himself, but i believe only one with a mind free of instincts (Alot of emotions like hate are a "side-effect" of these instincts) can see the bigger picture.

People life in their own reality, they lack objectivity and this leads to irrational thinking.

 

if we were ultimately selfish beings, villages would never have been invented.

=^^=
.../\...

 

you could say though that people create villages for their own good. SELFISH

 

Grouping is a survival technique that not only applies to humans.
It's part of our instincts. But why should i be more important than any other person? Why should all my acts be based on self gain?

I do not value myself more then any other person, but most people do, they live in a egocentric world, their consciousness is not strong enough to overthrow their primal instincts.

 

Ultimately, selfishness and unselfishness can be considered equivalents. A person who abandons their worldly existence and the obligations it entails in order to live a monastic life and pursue self-realization could easily be considered selfish. However, if they achieve their goal, their innate awareness of the interconnectedness of all life will compel them to serve others, and as a result of their realization they will radiate love and good-will wherever they go.

On the other end of the spectrum is the classic altruist, who from a superficial perspective always appears to sacrifice themselves in order to ensure the welfare of others. In reality, however, they could simply be suffering from what Chogyam Trungpa (Tibetan buddhist teacher) referred to as "spiritual materialism". They have simply become attached to an altruistic facade which ultimately only serves to reinforce their ego-identification. In essence, their motivations are purely selfish.

So really, with regard to an individual who has realized their true nature, it becomes a matter of semantics. On one hand, enlightenment could be considered the most self-centered state that's possible to attain, because an enlightened person is incapable of perceiving the entire universe as anything but an extension of their own being. On the other hand, enlightenment can only be achieved by relinquishing all selfish motivations. Ultimately, both total selfishness and total unselfishness produce the same result.

Travis