board77

Well is it? When would selfishness be a virtue? In what circumstances? I think most of us would agree that selfishness taken to the extreme is unhealthy for the individual and community (think rapists and despots here). Is selflessness ever detrimental? What about when it is taken to its extreme?

Self-centeredness is a "natural" condition. Does that in itself make it wholesome or good? Is self-centeredness good because it helps a creature to survive? Can this self-centeredness as survival instinct be applied to humans? What are the benefits (if any) of total selflessness? Please feel free to discuss. I find this topic fascinating. (I think this was dicussed in Manwë, but it was before my time on TORC.)

~Sidonzo

I think sometimes it can be good for some people. Thre are some people who continually give to others and are constantly worried about other's needs. There are extremes like people who are described as doormats. Their selflesness is actually harming themselves which in turn can harm others. They become worn down which can affect mental and physical health. The best thing they can do for themselves and the people they love is to take a break and pamper themselves. By relaxing and taking care of themselves, they improve their interactions and relationships with others.

Unfortunately, I think selfishness is a problem most of the time. I know it is for me.

Read Ayn Rand. You'll never ask this question again.

And, by the way, the answer is: Yes.

I am not a fan of Ayn Rand. I have read her books, but disagree with her philosiphy, although it does make sense on the surface. Perhaps one of the reasons I disagree was the person who introduced me to her books was self-centered in the extreme, and a real pain to work with. She thought the mentally handicapped student I was teaching riding to should be 'put away' in an institution. This was a long time ago, and I have trouble remembering, but I think she even implied that 'such people' had no right to live, because they couldn't contribute to society in a meaningful way.

Her selfishness meant that when I hurt my back being thrown off a horse, and asked for her help in loading the manure cart, she refused to help me. Well, no, she said she would help, but was so slow in getting around to it that I had the job done by the time she showed up.

Ayn did not advocate carrying selfishness to this extreme. I recall the main character in Atlas Shrugged did mentor and help a younger man he was working with.

The One I follow committed the ultimate act of selflessness, by sacrificing himself on the cross for our sins. I try to follow his teachings of 'doing unto others', and not judging others. My profession demands a certain amount of selflessness and giving, but I also am very aware of caregiver burnout. It is not easy for professional caregivers like nurses to keep a healthy balance between nurturing themselves and giving to others, but it is necessary for survival in such a stressful profession. I try to develop outside interests and hobbies, such as writing, archery, canoeing, skiing, etc. to provide recreation and stress relief.

Selfishness may be a necesary virtue, but I really enjoy giving, too, and knowing I have made a difference in someone's life. In my opinion, there's got to be a healthy balance between the two.

Interestingly enough, I heard Ayn Rand died a lonely, bitter old woman. She alienated supporters by arguing over fine points of her philosophy, then breaking off her relationship with them when they refused to change their viewpoint. It does not seem that her philosophy resulted in her having a very happy life.

Blast! I double posted!

I've heard about Rand, but didn't get around to reading her work.

To Sidonzo's question, I would say yes. It is, after all, in my selfish interest to make sure that the air is pure, the food safe and the water clean , that my country is at peace and my community is prosperous. Honestly, the way some people treat this world makes me wish for a bit more selfishness to go around.

On a personal level, too, I think it could be a good thing. When my son was an infant I selfishly accepted every offer of help I got. If my mom offered to stay with me for a few days or MIL asked if I would like her to make us a dinner, I said "yes!". Selfish? Sure, but it kept them connected to their newest descendant, and it helped me to stay sane and to care for my son better. Good thing all around.

As a very wise woman said, you have to feel your gas tank or you won't ever get anywhere. If a person is selflessly running herself rugged, sooner or later the break will come. She will either feel resentful and blow up at her loved ones eventually, or her health will give out and someone will have to drop everything to care for her.

And yes, anything taken to extreme is detrimental. Too much water will kill one, too.

A little bit of selfish is VITAL, especially for caregivers like nurses, etc, as Sunsilver said, and also for people like mothers, or spouses, I think - who have to be the caregivers in their human unit. Else you burn out. Eventually you burn out, and you can give nothing, or what you do give is poisoned, either by your own lack of resources or by a slow resentment at being mercilessly sucked dry by others.

In general I love giving! Life becomes so stale, closed and cold if you are selfish. Sharing life with others, and that means sharing yourself and giving of yourself, generates so much light and joy.

So, how am I selfish? I need quiet time too. I'm a hermit at heart. I can't function if I don't have a half hour or 40 minutes or an hour, just a little while every day, just for myself. Whether that time is occupied just reading a book, or doing a bit of writing, or just watching a favourite thing on television, or perhaps just sitting and thinking, I need it. I don't need to be physically alone while recharging like that - it is in fact lovely to have another kindred soul close by, to share some proximity while still doing your own thing - but it IS important that I'm allowed to just concentrate on myself, on whatever I do. To be reading a novel without someone hovering waiting for me to pay attention, or to write knowing I will be allowed to write without interruption until the muse releases me for the night, or some such. That is how I'm selfish - I want my little bit of space, my little bit of aloneness in the midst of humans, my bit of space in togetherness. Else I can't give, and I love giving.

Frelga wrote:

On a personal level, too, I think it could be a good thing. When my son was an infant I selfishly accepted every offer of help I got. If my mom offered to stay with me for a few days or MIL asked if I would like her to make us a dinner, I said "yes!".

Is accepting the offer of help when needed a selfish act? I don't see it as such.
Nor is caring for the quality of one's life (clean unpolluted environment, peace).

Maybe we need to define what selfishness is. For me selfishness occurs when I put my, often imaginary, needs above the real needs of others.

In the case of Frelga and her son, she had a real need there. Her mom asked if she wanted help and she accepted. Why is that selfish?
It would have been selfish is she didn't really need any help and her mother wasn't in the position to help her (maybe she didn't have the time or was away or she needed help herself) and Frelga insisted that her mother helped her although her mum needed real help herself. That would have been a selfish act.

Caring for oneself, like in the case of nurses that Sunsilver and Griffon mentioned, is not selfish. Caring for oneself on the expense of the real need of others, that is selfish. It is a question of balance and perspective.

I haven't read any of the Rand books, I haven't even heard of her before, but, from what I hear here, they don't sound as something I would like to read.

What exactly is "selflessness"? By definition, you can't choose to do something you don't want to. If I choose to give some of my money to a charity, isn't it because I'm (selfishly) trying to make the world into the sort of place I want it to be? If I sacrifice to make someone else happy, isn't that because their happiness makes me happy as well, and I feel more at peace with the world as a result?

Andri - I don't know if it is always selfish to care for oneself at the expense of the real need of others - or at least, I don't think that could be an absolute definition. It is selfish to NOT look after yourself and make sure you are able to give the care, etc you should be giving, is the sort of angle I'm thinking of.

Selfish would be holding back more of yourself than you need, maybe. We all need some care and attention to ourselves, but we actually have so much to give, and once we start giving, we generate more to give. Giving is something that feeds the giver as much as the recipient. That's my sort of angle on all this

I think selfishness is very important, because it's important that we know who we are before we go out conquering the world. You have to like yourself, know yourself, be aware of yourself, to control yourself.

The only times in my life when I have balance is when I concentrate fully on myself. Otherwise I'm a little wreck and there's threads unravelling from me all over the place...I start getting excited over other people's lives, wishing I was where someone else is, wishing I did something someone else did, had the talent they do, had the life they do, had the body they do...and then I have to say, NO. Why am I getting so excited over someone else's life? I've got mine to shape as I please and instead I'm sitting here, listening to a strange crowd at a strange concert and pretending I was there too...what's the deal with that. I don't need someone else's experiences.

I had to realise what I wanted to gather myself together. Had to define ME. The selfish me.

And how does the selfish me ever act unselfish? Never. When I do something for someone, it always gives me pleasure to do it. It's simply a matter of deciding that I want to. I never 'have' to do anything.

Selfishness keeps me steady.

This is fascinating.

I think, however, that we are missing an important cultural distinction. The very preoccupation with self-centeredness and self-preservation and self advancement at all costs we have in the Western world is strongly based on individualism. In more collectivist cultures, this concept is not so prominent. For some cultures, a cooperative approach is the default, and honouring, respecting, and advancing the wellness of the group, be it a family or a company or a society is paramount. Relationships and their harmony overrule the immediate needs of the individual. In those cultures, greatest satisfaction and self esteem is derived from excelling in collective tasks and seeing oneself as an integral part of the whole.

EDIT: Forgot to mention one part of this concept that might make it clearer. The individualistic self is independent. Think of separate circles in a space. The collectivist self is interdependent; think of one circle, interlocking with many others. Relationships and ties with others, such as "daughter, student, granddaughter, wife" are very important and parts of self are seen in the others one sustains relationships with, and the quality of those relationships. The general rule is that Western culture is individualistic and Eastern cultures are collectivist, but of course, the variety in individual people is greater. One can certainly find a single Westerner who is more collectivist than some one Easterner and vice versa with individualism, though its not too common. Women in general also show more collectivist tendencies than men (across both types of cultures)

Both self centeredness and altruism can be explained evolutionarily, and really, boil down to the same thing... even if altruism does not provide indirect gains (societal approval, return of favours, high status, good reputation) - which is rare - it simply FEELS good. That makes sense as an evolutionary mechanism hardwired into our brains. Helping others has been somehow adaptive, and nature has made sure we still do it by coupling it with pleasure in our brains.

As a product of this Western culture, I do see a need to take care of oneself first...but this really follows from what Frelga has already quoted... I know this principle as "you cant pour from an empty cup, or you cant give from an empty basket".

There is nothing wrong in living a life of selfless giving as the primary goal, but in the non-ideal world we live in that puts people at the risk of being taken advantage of and exploited. Were these things not threats, and doing selfless acts fulfilled the person and made him or her happy, everything would be great. Unfortunatelly this is a utopian view. In a society where individualism is prized and most people, when it comes down to it, care about self preservation and self advancement most, being completely selfless can be dangerous. There are people who gladly take but slack on the giving, and that skews the balance of things.

Is it wrong that not all of us (or not even most) could imitate the life of say, Mother Teresa, and that we like our creature comforts and have personal goals that entail our own futures and what we would like to acquire/accomplish for our own benefit? No, I dont think its wrong...but a balance should be aimed for.

I also think its critical to understand the interconnectedness of people and things. Running oneself down eventually also harms the others one is always madly rushing to help...Constantly backing down and agreeing to things that dont make sense or dont seem right to one's internal senses is unhealthy and can lead to problems for both the stronger, imposing party, for the "doormat" person and also for societal units as a whole. Too many unquestioning "yes men" can lead to disasters. Taking care of oneself, within limit, is also benefitting others.

Excellent and perceptive post, enchantress. So many of us naturally filter these questions through our Western individualistic approach, don't we ...

For me, Jesus sums up everything: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'

If you hate yourself, you're not going to be very good at loving your neighbour. Or anything else. Self-hatred is not a Christian virtue!

For me, as a Christian, the challenge is to find the right and healthy balance between my natural human instinct for self-preservation and what Christ calls me to - a life of giving my life for Him and others.

How that all works out in practice - in my own life and in wider spheres like my community - I'll have to try to address later.

Am on my lunchhour so as ever am posting in haste.

We cannot help but be self-centered, unless we are saints. But I differentiate between that and selfishness. To be self-centered is merely to be, well, centered in one's self, which is only right and proper. Even the airlines tell you to put your mask on first before helping your child put theirs on...
To be selfish, on the other hand, is to demand that the world serve your perceived needs first, foremost, and in the worst cases, only.

Ax,

Even saints do the saintly thing to be recognized, whether it be by god or humans.

I would like to discuss the mind of selfishness.....Isn't everything we do regardless selfish. Why do we do things at all? Even in an Alturistic society. We do things so we can live, pass on our genes, and look good in front of God. There always has to be some sort of self pay off for what we do, even if we are doormats. I know I was a doormat for a long time. I was a doormat because I on a weird level was looking for approval of myself, if I gave enough people would accept me, so on the outside I looked very unselfish, on the inside I was merely looking for acceptance of me. And I think that psychologically we do that regardless of what our conscience and mind are thinking. We want to survive, we want to prove ourselves, and we want approval of society and/or god. I think people need the atta boys, kudos, awards (even if they only be internal warm fuzzy’s that come from helping others), its human nature. So I say everything we do has a sense of selfishness in it, we psychologically are made up to want to love and want to be loved. Its as simply as asking why we do something, why do some people volunteer to help people, because they want to help, why do they wan to help, because it’s the right thing to do, why is it the right thing to do, because it makes me have a sense of self accomplishment, it makes me feel good that I helped someone, I know I help and volunteer, I don’t like receiving awards for helping others, I know that seeing the look on someone’s face is enough for me, but its still my ego that is being stroked.

It can turn around for such criminals however, any attention any feeling is better than none. So if its a bad feeling its better than nothing, if its bad attention its better than none. If a construtive possitive way of expression and getting ones needs met is not happening then a desconstructive method is used.

The word "selfish" is the problem.

We can have "rational self-interest" or "enlightened self-interest".

My main problem with many belief systems is the insistence on self-abnegation.

Since it is impossible to "give up" self interest, the poor suffering pilgrim is awash with guilt, thus proving that she is a bad person and thus is a sinner and on and on we go.

I have read of saints who literally lashed themselves in disgust because they enjoyed their own sense purity and devotion. They were afraid of even that kind of self-interest.

It is better to be honest. We are all "selfish", it is part of being alive. If we take "selfish" joy from being a nurse or a doctor or a mother or a hockey coach, then we are expressing our own nature in truth, not in some imaginary sacrifice. We are entitled to joy! We are entitled to seek happiness! Life is not meant to be a vale of tears.

We are as we are, and every system that attempts to change human nature is rightly doomed. King Procrustes had his method, and history is full of others. Millions die, when human nature is ignored or perverted; twisted into monsters by some mad attempt to make men and women "fit" some philosophy or another.

As for Ayn Rand, yes she came to a sad end. Her life story makes instructive reading. I think she was right about a lot of things, articulating what had not been so well expressed before. But heaven knows she wasn't perfect.

vison--
Enlightened self-interest rarely is, unfortunately.

One need never reproach oneself, IMO, if one never denies joy to another. If everyone has a right to joy (and they do, I agree) then there are two paths--that of everyone grasping at whatever they can, and that of everyone helping each other to achieve as much joy as possible. The first requires that joy be a zero-sum game, which I profoundly reject.

A-A--

Our needs are our own, and they include the need to feel needed. But there are clearly constructive, and as you note, destructive ways to fulfill that need.

Enchantress wrote:

The individualistic self is independent. Think of separate circles in a space. The collectivist self is interdependent; think of one circle, interlocking with many others. Relationships and ties with others, such as "daughter, student, granddaughter, wife" are very important and parts of self are seen in the others one sustains relationships with, and the quality of those relationships.

I wish I had time to think this through before posting.

I think the big problem here is that the "individualistic" Western culture has lost the sight of these connections. People perceive themselves as independent from others, but that's crock. We are constantly shaped and defined by people around us, whether we choose to or not. We need others, to support us, to compete against, and yes for us to support them.

A self-centered view of the world, where one's primary goal is to realize one's "potential" to one's own satisfaction clashes with the reality of human nature as a social animal. In the process of evolution, a species where each individual is relatively weak compared to lions and tigers (and bears) became a top predator through cooperation. Our greatest adaptations are the intelligent brain and the ability to communicate effectively (almost ran into a Spanish Inquisition trap here. "Among our greatest adaptations..." ). The brain takes a long time to mature, and the human offspring is virtually helpless for years, which ties up a lot of resources of the group in childbearing and childraising. This makes the individual's life precious and valuable to the group. We are wired to both contribute to the group and to crave the group's support and approval.

The instinct of continuation of the species is perhaps the strongest one, overriding even self-preservation. I expect that most grown-ups would risk their life without a thought by, for instance, rushing into heavy traffic to grab a child.

Ironically, the Western individualist culture also clashes heavily with the demands of the prevailing religion, which focuses on the pefecting the spiritual self and negating the physical. Vison has expressed this much better than I could.

vison wrote:

My main problem with many belief systems is the insistence on self-abnegation.

Since it is impossible to "give up" self interest, the poor suffering pilgrim is awash with guilt, thus proving that she is a bad person and thus is a sinner and on and on we go.

Here's a church lady's take on religion and self-abnegation:

A self in relationship with God is not negated, but fulfilled. God's will for us is that we be, as richly and fully as possible, ourselves. Then our gifts are gifts to those we love and to the world--and, just incidentally, our lives are rich and rewarding as well.

The tricky part is taking your hands off the steering wheel.

Lovely post, Prim.