Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Is selfishness 'wrong'?

11:42 / 27.04.03

Selfishness. Selfish is defined in the dictionary as: being concerned chiefly or only with oneself.

But I always think of the word as SELF-ish, concentrating on the self, and I don’t see it in terms of the way it’s generally used, as a derogatory term: You’re so selfish , you don’t care about me.

Do you see the difference? Is there one, or am I deluding myself?

And am I wrong here? Is it a ‘bad’ thing to be selfish? Should all my energies go into thinking about other people, putting them first? I did that for a long time and it didn’t get me very far in the happy and content stakes, but I felt like a good person, and less likely to be reincarnated as a maggot.

Now I’m thinking mainly about me and I feel more at ease with myself, but I'm also aware it’s making other people unhappy.

Is there a happy medium? is being selfish an acceptable form of introspection?

Or just self-indulgent navel-gazing?

Matthew Fluxington

11:47 / 27.04.03

I would think that there is a big difference between caring about oneself (perfectly reasonable) and selishness/selfabsorption. It's a question of tone and balance, I think. One is selfish when they do not consider their effect on other people's lives, when they put themselves ahead of all other responsibilities to other people.

Selfishness is not a good thing, but in moderation it can be an understandable flaw of humanity.

12:21 / 27.04.03

Selfishness is bad. Because if you have a large pizza, and I am very hungry, but you won't let me have a slice, I will still be hungry, and you will have made an enemy.

12:34 / 27.04.03

Ahhh, but I would give you a slice of my pizza. So therefore I cannot be selfish!

12:41 / 27.04.03

I think that at different times selfishness can be a good or bad thing. As Jack said if you have a large pizza and you don't share it is a bad thing. But if you only have a small pizza and you're both hungry then you need to look our for yourself. Being selfish is a very basic instinct designed for your own personal survival. I suppose Flux is right in that you need to balance selflessness and selfishness. Being self-absorbed on the other hand is in my opinion one of the worst things someone can be. I can undestand if it's a case of being selfish for a good reason(like not sharing a small pizza) but if somebody is totaly wrapped up in themselves it's really hard to enjoy being round them and if you think you're becoming like that I would try to stop.

18:13 / 27.04.03

I think it comes down to reciprocity. If I can count on you to give me a piece of pizza if our positions were reversed, then I would be more likely to hand mine over. However, if I've decided that you wouldn't, then you're going to be out of luck.

If you let someone's needs control you, with no standards or requirements, then you will spend your life as their slave and they will never have any reason to stop needing from you. If you continue, you will begin to resent others for their unending needs, and you will come to hate yourself for fulfilling them.

18:53 / 27.04.03

I think selfish acts can be wrong, certainly. I'm not convinced that selfishness is in itself inherently a bad thing. After all, why give some of your pizza to Jack when you can save it for yourself?

19:43 / 27.04.03

I think this is a problem of language more than anything: when we say someone is selfish we actually mean they are greedy and unsociable (“one for all and more for me Me ME!”

.

The happy medium is seeing that you do not go without but that once your basic needs are met share with others (the selfish person seeks to accumulate beyond need - status is more their drive; one-up-man-ship).

The unhappy extreme at the other end is altruism, which basically makes you a doormat ("here have my kidney, no take them both....urgh!").

21:17 / 27.04.03

Can't remember (as usual) where this came from, but some study whereby computers were programmed to either help or block each other, came out with the results that the most succesful way forward was where you acted selflessly the first time and from there on in acted dependent on the last responses from the person you were dealing with from there on in. (as in if they stitched you up, you do the same next time, but if they didn't you help them out, and you give them the benefit of the doubt first off)

It's perhaps a bit simplistic, but works for me!

14:34 / 28.04.03

You can play the game sTe speaks of here.

It's worth bearing in mind that the Prisoners' Dilemma, in its many forms, has more to do with whether it is rational to act selfishly, rather than right or wrong per se.
Whether it is ever wrong to be rational is perhaps another interesting question.

16:23 / 28.04.03

Considering 'rational' is pretty much about placing the most weight on the most probable event and proportionally less weight on the less probable ones, as far as your level of awareness/knowledge allows (whilst still being aware that some of the more probable less probable (!) ones often happen as well), I'd hazard a guess that rational is a good thing.

16:45 / 28.04.03

The computer strategy that sTe refers to is usually known as Tit-for-Tat. It does have some interesting consequences for a discussion of the origin of morality, but it is worth bearing in mind that more complex games allow "cheaters" to profit as long as they remain in a minority.

Whether it is ever wrong to be rational is perhaps another interesting question.

Really? I think that it is pretty self evident that rationality can only proceed with some base assumptions and therefore rational decisions must rest on ethical choices. Even then, the rational is often far from clear. So that makes it pretty easy to be "wrong" and rational.

10:38 / 29.04.03

You know that they had a second round of the game, after telling everybody that Tit-For-Tat was the most effective strategy the first time? Loads of people tried to develop something to beat it, loads of complex and involved strategies- and Tit-For-Tat won again. It's the best strategy (in a system where a minority of cheaters prosper the game breaks down as the majority start to cheat, mimicking the most successful strategy. If only that were true in life!)

To answer the question though (belatedly) NO it's not wrong to be selfish. The reason moral systems tend toward altruism is because they are weighting against people's natural innate selfishness (look at a baby) to get a balance.
Sometimes you can find yourself in a place in your life where you are giving your kidneys away (so to speak) and nobody's looking after you. At those times you have to be selfish, even if other people bleat and moan. Of course they won't like it, they're not getting to walk all over you any more.

Capitalist Piglet

20:00 / 29.04.03

Self-interested is the right term. It is good to be self-interested, or to look out for your self-interest, because when you take care of yourself first, you become more capable of helping others. A lot of mothers in the US today have this feeling of forced martyrdom because they give themselves so completely to their families, but never to themselves. If they would devote more energy into making themselves happy and healthy, they will be even better equipped to meet the needs of their family (this goes for dads, too, but they don't seem to have the complaint that women have about this).

06:35 / 30.04.03

Hence my belief that the problem is greed rather than self-interest.

20:46 / 30.04.03

Thre's nothing wrong with self-interest. Unless you're an arse about it.