Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

How would you define selfishness and self-interest?

Libertarianism.

[LovelyLau]

Everyone has self interest I mean it is human, some more than others
Selfishness is I think cultivated but I think some people are more genetically prone too
However it is possible to try to think less about one's life and interests and self but now I virtually think this is difficult very difficult for some.
Because there's many people suffering in the world and if people thought about themselves less maybe they could help them more.
So instead of blaming God for the world problems take a bit of your money and give 10 to the poor monthly..do it
This being said though I do think some people or a lot of people do give at times.
But still some have quite a lot and it would be interesting to know

[Belinda]

Everyone has self interest I mean it is human, some more than others
Selfishness is I think cultivated but I think some people are more genetically prone too
However it is possible to try to think less about one's life and interests and self but now I virtually think this is difficult very difficult for some.
Because there's many people suffering in the world and if people thought about themselves less maybe they could help them more.
So instead of blaming God for the world problems take a bit of your money and give 10 to the poor monthly..do it
This being said though I do think some people or a lot of people do give at times.
But still some have quite a lot and it would be interesting to know

Enlightened self interest does indicate that richer nations should send aid to foreign countries that
need it. This is best done as government policy. Private charity is good but is unlikely to be sufficient.

[LovelyLau]

Everyone has self interest I mean it is human, some more than others
Selfishness is I think cultivated but I think some people are more genetically prone too
However it is possible to try to think less about one's life and interests and self but now I virtually think this is difficult very difficult for some.
Because there's many people suffering in the world and if people thought about themselves less maybe they could help them more.
So instead of blaming God for the world problems take a bit of your money and give 10 to the poor monthly..do it
This being said though I do think some people or a lot of people do give at times.
But still some have quite a lot and it would be interesting to know

Enlightened self interest does indicate that richer nations should send aid to foreign countries that
need it. This is best done as government policy. Private charity is good but is unlikely to be sufficient.

I think each country should focus on their own people and problems because that is what the world needs and lessen their help to other countries and let them deal with their own issues.
But yes a lot of countries that need extra help are ruled by people who have hidden agendas or no control over their country or people.
There is a lot of darkness and violence in the world.

[Belinda]

Everyone has self interest I mean it is human, some more than others
Selfishness is I think cultivated but I think some people are more genetically prone too
However it is possible to try to think less about one's life and interests and self but now I virtually think this is difficult very difficult for some.
Because there's many people suffering in the world and if people thought about themselves less maybe they could help them more.
So instead of blaming God for the world problems take a bit of your money and give 10 to the poor monthly..do it
This being said though I do think some people or a lot of people do give at times.
But still some have quite a lot and it would be interesting to know

Enlightened self interest does indicate that richer nations should send aid to foreign countries that
need it. This is best done as government policy. Private charity is good but is unlikely to be sufficient.

I think each country should focus on their own people and problems because that is what the world needs and lessen their help to other countries and let them deal with their own issues.
But yes a lot of countries that need extra help are ruled by people who have hidden agendas or no control over their country or people.
There is a lot of darkness and violence in the world.

Do you not think that the "darkness and violence" are international issues? After all , every country depends on other countries to trade fairly with it. And every country depends on every other country to keep the peace and not go to war. And every country depends on every other country to make the effort to reduce man- made climate change.

[LovelyLau]

Everyone has self interest I mean it is human, some more than others
Selfishness is I think cultivated but I think some people are more genetically prone too
However it is possible to try to think less about one's life and interests and self but now I virtually think this is difficult very difficult for some.
Because there's many people suffering in the world and if people thought about themselves less maybe they could help them more.
So instead of blaming God for the world problems take a bit of your money and give 10 to the poor monthly..do it
This being said though I do think some people or a lot of people do give at times.
But still some have quite a lot and it would be interesting to know

Enlightened self interest does indicate that richer nations should send aid to foreign countries that
need it. This is best done as government policy. Private charity is good but is unlikely to be sufficient.

I think each country should focus on their own people and problems because that is what the world needs and lessen their help to other countries and let them deal with their own issues.
But yes a lot of countries that need extra help are ruled by people who have hidden agendas or no control over their country or people.
There is a lot of darkness and violence in the world.

Do you not think that the "darkness and violence" are international issues? After all , every country depends on other countries to trade fairly with it. And every country depends on every other country to keep the peace and not go to war. And every country depends on every other country to make the effort to reduce man- made climate change.

My opinion is that countries need to gain more independence too and work on their own countries issues because each country has enough problems, enough population and enough of a load without worrying about others.
And not so many imports but focus on supporting your own countries farms and produce instead of slave labour from other poor countries. I know it can be difficult with so much population but overtime may work.
And in terms of it does not mean we pull out of other countries if they need others help completely but scale back a bit and let people deal with their own issues more and have compromise but also respect for each countries individually in terms of economy, traditions, values, beliefs etc instead of trying to enforce each other's beliefs on another and disrespecting each countries leaders, people and customs all because of stupidity and sometimes power and money struggles.
I think a lot of it is often blind stupidity rather than actually a lot about power or money in fact.
Like Biden in fact in USA hate to pass judgement but probably not his fault.
Because he gets to much pressure and outside force from supremists below him who are the heavy influencers and hold outside influence somehow and the courts.
And cannot do much for the people in his country who struggle..
So therefore focuses too much on Russia and Ukraine and their problems just so he looks like he is doing something good for someone to get the support of his country people because he has no hope with his own countries problems.

[Samana Johann]

I do not like when people praise selfishness, but I also do not like it when people condemn self-interestedness. But the disagreement may be mostly terminological. Let me explain what the terms mean to me.

I believe a conscious being must be self-interested. I would define a conscious being as having interests (e.g. goals, values, desires, etc.) and having the will-power to make choices to try to achieve those interests. Thus, in a way, a each person always makes choices based on his or her self-interest. But people are ignorant and stupid to varying degrees. Even though they make choices in an attempt to fulfill their interests, they often make counter-productive choices out of ignorance and stupidity.

I think we would all recommend that people avoid ignorance and stupidity to fulfill their interests.

Nonetheless, to me, the term selfishness refers to someone whose interests or behaviors are distinctly self-centered, sociopathic, and/or self-harmful. I believe it is most often used to refer to an especially materialistic, short-sighted, or superficial person. It is also heavily associated with greed which generally refers to an obsessiveness with some types of personal gratification that distorts a person's perceptions rendering them stupid. Consider Gollum from the Lord of the Rings, for example.

Most humans find it in their self-interest to help others and to not be selfish, namely because of feelings of empathy and sympathy. Just as it makes us feel happy to eat delicious food and sleep in a comfortable bed, it also makes us happy to help others and join hands with the people around us. Just as an intelligent, self-interested person may choose to purchase some delicious, healthy food for a certain price, a person may choose to get the pleasures and benefits of associating with others even when it has drawbacks and costs.

Sometimes hurting other people or refusing to help them is selfish. Other times it is a healthy way to protect yourself and provide help to others and an effective way to fulfill your desires. Some associations with other people will help you help others, which generally will make you happier. Some associations will just hurt you and hinder your ability to help others, which will generally make you less happy.

Some people have a much stronger desire to help others. But most of us have a lot of that desire. Rarely, there are sociopaths who do not have a sense of empathy; they are to empathy what the blind man is to sight, but they are rare (and dangerous). For most people, selfishness is foolish and self-harmful. In other words, it is generally in most people's self-interest to not be selfish.

What do you think? How would you define selfishness and self-interest?

To quote some enlightened, good Brahman:

At Savatthi. As he was sitting to one side, King Pasenadi Kosala said to the Blessed One: “Just now, lord, while I was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'Who have themselves protected, and who leave themselves unprotected?' Then it occurred to me: 'Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct leave themselves unprotected. Even though a squadron of elephant troops might protect them, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, a squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they leave themselves unprotected. Why is that? Because that's an external protection, not an internal one. Therefore they leave themselves unprotected. But those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct have themselves protected. Even though neither a squadron of elephant troops, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, nor a squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they have themselves protected. Why is that? Because that's an internal protection, not an external one. Therefore they have themselves protected.'”

“That's the way it is, great king! That's the way it is! Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct leave themselves unprotected. Even though a squadron of elephant troops might protect them, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, a squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they leave themselves unprotected. Why is that? Because that's an external protection, not an internal one. Therefore they leave themselves unprotected. But those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct have themselves protected. Even though neither a squadron of elephant troops, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, nor a squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they have themselves protected. Why is that? Because that's an internal protection, not an external one. Therefore they have themselves protected.”

That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:



Restraint with the body is good,
good is restraint with speech.
Restraint with the heart is good,
good is restraint everywhere.
Restrained everywhere,
conscientious,
one is said to be
protected.

Not holding oneself dear and act in this favor isn't wise. Yet the problem lies there that people take things else then own as self. For things which are sure to break away and will not last, people harm themselves, their goodness, their virtue, generosity. An ugly self, no joy with oneself, leading to more seeking of joy outward ones range.

Nothing as one's actions (good or bad) follow one, beings are heir, owner of their actions.

Therefore, like a young maiden would care about her face, protect it, maintain it's beauty, one should protect one's goodness and virtue, clean faults away.

Real selfishness is not only one's own best, but also for the best of all others, and can therefore never be called "selfish".

May all people, instead of objects of senses, children, house, car, body, mood... start or continue to love themselves and protect their goodness, goodwill, virtue, develop them, as a mother would care of her only son.

May the highest charitableness serve many to become really selfish, for prosperity and beyond.

[Philo1wond]

You know, the philosopher/neuro scientist Nayef Al-Rodhan, has developed a concept on exactly what you are describing....
he called it emotional amoral egoism, where he considers how humans are inherently egoistic, especially if put under stress. He also offers a solution on how we can create a society, where humans are able to act less self-centered.
if you just want a quick overview over this theory, I recommend his Article, "A Neuro-Philosophy of Human Nature: Emotional Amoral Egoism and the Five Motivators of Humankind" in Blog of the APA. But he has also written a whole book on it, which I can highly recommend!

[Nice Tea]

Interestingly, I feel like I have heard the word the word selfish used in a good sense. But I can only imagine that this would happen only in dire situations, when someone sacrificed their morals for their own well-being, self-prioritized when it was necessary to step on or hurt others. Really dread cases like these, the cringiest examples I can think of are of have to do with some Squid Game scenario, killing others for the prize money. I think selfish should always be used with a negative connotation. Self-interest should be there without saying, a given that you know yourself better than others, know and work for what you want first and foremost. Helping friends and family is usually what makes people look like a kind person in the eyes of others, and how you treat others close to you is essential to your reputation. The idea of sacrificing your feeling for others for your own good is a flawed idea, and hurting others for little personal gain is always wrong. This is the most common scenario evoked when the word evil is brought up. Causing pain and suffering for others while you live in relative comfort, is evil. It is selfish, having know feeling for those other than yourself which makes it acceptable to yourself and willing to commit an action like that.

[Sy Borg]

How would you define selfishness and self-interest?

Libertarianism.

The idea of libertarianism is to reduce government waste and distortions, resulting in reduced productivity. Libertarians operate on the "lift all boats" approach, figuring that the innovations encouraged by freedom will ultimately create a better life for most people.

Like most ideologies, if one adheres strictly, it does not work with messy reality. There are no ideal solutions to societal problems. I thought Scott's analysis in the OP was pretty balanced. You literally can't save everyone but it's sound strategy to to not have many people with nothing to lose. There'll not be much loyalty or cooperation from those who feel they have no stake in a society.

[Pattern-chaser]

The idea of libertarianism is to reduce government waste and distortions, resulting in reduced productivity.

I think there's rather more to it than that?

[Sy Borg]

The idea of libertarianism is to reduce government waste and distortions, resulting in reduced productivity.

I think there's rather more to it than that? 🤔

That's why I wrote some extra sentences after that, but you seemed to have missed them.

[Pattern-chaser]

That's why I wrote some extra sentences after that, but you seemed to have missed them.

Yes, you're quite right. By quoting the start of your words, I intended only to keep my response concise. Here is the full version:

********************************************************************************************

The idea of libertarianism is to reduce government waste and distortions, resulting in reduced productivity. Libertarians operate on the "lift all boats" approach, figuring that the innovations encouraged by freedom will ultimately create a better life for most people.

Like most ideologies, if one adheres strictly, it does not work with messy reality. There are no ideal solutions to societal problems. I thought Scott's analysis in the OP was pretty balanced. You literally can't save everyone but it's sound strategy to to not have many people with nothing to lose. There'll not be much loyalty or cooperation from those who feel they have no stake in a society.

I think there's rather more to it than that?

I was thinking, as an example, of the very strong association between libertarianism and individualism. And there is still rather more to libertarianism than that, as we both know, don't we?



But this topic is not discussing the definition of libertarianism. Scott asked a question, and I posted one answer, of the infinite number there to choose from:

How would you define selfishness and self-interest?

Libertarianism.

Clearly, I hope, my answer must usefully include the individualist aspect of libertarianism, in order to properly address Scott's question.

[Sy Borg]

I referred to libertarianism's aim, you referred to the process.

You should have lived in Scandinavia before they went berserk with immigration. Before Sweden decided to turn Nordic nations into the rape epicentre of Europe, they were high trust communities where selfishness was frowned upon. The community came first, and the individual second. You'd have loved it.

[Pattern-chaser]

I referred to libertarianism's aim, you referred to the process.

You should have lived in Scandinavia before they went berserk with immigration. Before Sweden decided to turn Nordic nations into the rape epicentre of Europe, they were high trust communities where selfishness was frowned upon. The community came first, and the individual second. You'd have loved it.

My preference has always been balance, in this situation. A true balance between the community and the individual. This allows both to 'perform' at their best, for the good and benefit of all. Is that so wrong?