JoeRedskin
07-22-2009, 06:41 PM
In some of the healthcare threads, the concept of man’s innate selfishness was bandied about. This post started out as an addendum to one of my interminably long health care posts (Hey- In my defense, I was mocked for simply taking random jabs). I thought the concept interesting and applicable to a much broader range of concepts and, rather, than dilute an already lengthy post, I pulled this out and thought a new thread might be interesting. It’s offseason rambling but, hey, a little self-examination never hurt anybody. If no one finds it of interest, it will die a quick death. As I really haven’t read/examined Freud and the whole “Id/Ego” thing, I may be going over things that are much more well developed by individuals much more intelligent than myself.
Also - There is a real question at the end of all this so don’t think this is just some random lecture.
In much of the health care debate the role of “selfishness” was debated and assertions as to the selfish nature of man were bandied about. Essentially, it seemed to me that people kept asserting "People are inherently selfish" - whether it's in the id/ego thing or in the realm of spiritual/instinctual discussion. Throughout, the concept that, by nature, people are inherently “selfish” seemed generally accepted. i.e. – A person will inherently place their own needs/desires over the needs and desires of others even if doing so would be detrimental to others.
-- I disagree.
IMO - people are inherently self-interested not selfish. Further, healthy self interest does not require that an individual place his interests above those of others. Rather, to me, self-interest equates more to self-awareness: knowledge that I exist and I am distinct. This self-interest, in turn, allows us to ultimately understand the needs of others. Aware of these needs and based on them, people often chose to place the needs of other above their own.
I believe all healthy humans past the age of about 2 have a strong dose of self-awareness - ask my 2 year old daughter she is in the "MINE!!" stage. In fact, my daughter’s instinctual behavior – claiming all things are hers and exhibiting possessive behavior of those things - would seem to be a strong indication of innate selfishness. Even at this young age, however, she is willing to share things that are “hers”. The sharing comes only after you acknowledge that it is hers to give. It seems to me that the acts of possession, rather than exhibiting an intent to place her desires above others, is an attempt to demonstrate to others that she has desires and needs. My six year old son, although entering his petulant phase, went through this “mine” stage also and emerged from it with consistent desire to place the desires of others above his own. My wife and I have always tried to nurtured this trait, but I would suggest he displayed both empathy and sympathy towards others at an early age and that it came to him just as naturally as did his desire to possess things.
In his desire to assist others who seemed sad, Aidan often chose an item dear to him, or one that would make him happy, as an offering to the sad person (I don’t believe him to be unique in this trait as I have seen it exhibited many other youngsters at that age). Further, although the people he most often choose to share with were family or friends, these “random acts of kindness” were not limited to individuals who would or had provided him love, support or gifts i.e. the actions did not appear to be driven by quid pro quo intent – in fact, he seemed blissfully unaware that some might expect to get a return on kindness given. Rather, the drive behind his actions appeared to be – “Are they unhappy? If so, they must need something. I will give them something that makes me happy even though it will make ME sad to lose it.” In these instances, it was his self-awareness as to what made HIM happy that influenced his choice on how to make others happy. Thus, rather than an exhibition in selfishness, his “mine” phase seemed to help understand the concept of need/want and the consequences when needs/wants were denied.
As adults, our self-awareness is much more heightened. We have a better understanding of our needs whether they be physical, material, spiritual, intellectual, etc. Likewise, I would suggest, we also have a more developed understanding of others needs. Rather than some instinctual “my needs take priority”, I suggest we go through our lives balancing our own needs against the needs of others and often choose to place the needs of others before ourselves. We make these choices because of our self awareness and the driving force in resolving these decisions is not “selfishness” - though it may be. I can think of many extreme and not so extreme examples of individuals making sacrifices without any hope, thought or expectation of recompense (either monetary, spiritual or other).
In that we are born requiring others to care for us, it may be that rather than an innate selfishness, we become aware at an early age of the giving by others. As we age and our self awareness grows, we recognize – at some level - the incredible acts of selflessness and sacrifice that were required to maintain our existence. Isn’t it possible, rather than innate selfishness, that through generations and generations of parental (and at the dawn of time, tribal) sacrifice it became ingrained in us that survival depends on giving? To me, the idea of selfishness and its effect on our decision making is much more easily transferred in society than that the concept of unrecompensed self-sacrifice.
I guess my question is this – and maybe there is a Freudian explanation: If we are innately selfish, how did the concept of “self sacrifice without recompense” come into existence? In that, by definition, such actions would be contrary to our most fundamental programming. How could we learn them? Again, if selfishness is innate, how could total selflessness ever be learned -- or even contemplated as a desired behavior?
My father taught me: Do good because it is the right thing to do, not for any expectation of a return. If he and I are innately selfish, what possible benefit to either of us was gained by this lesson?
Ramblings over.
Also - There is a real question at the end of all this so don’t think this is just some random lecture.
In much of the health care debate the role of “selfishness” was debated and assertions as to the selfish nature of man were bandied about. Essentially, it seemed to me that people kept asserting "People are inherently selfish" - whether it's in the id/ego thing or in the realm of spiritual/instinctual discussion. Throughout, the concept that, by nature, people are inherently “selfish” seemed generally accepted. i.e. – A person will inherently place their own needs/desires over the needs and desires of others even if doing so would be detrimental to others.
-- I disagree.
IMO - people are inherently self-interested not selfish. Further, healthy self interest does not require that an individual place his interests above those of others. Rather, to me, self-interest equates more to self-awareness: knowledge that I exist and I am distinct. This self-interest, in turn, allows us to ultimately understand the needs of others. Aware of these needs and based on them, people often chose to place the needs of other above their own.
I believe all healthy humans past the age of about 2 have a strong dose of self-awareness - ask my 2 year old daughter she is in the "MINE!!" stage. In fact, my daughter’s instinctual behavior – claiming all things are hers and exhibiting possessive behavior of those things - would seem to be a strong indication of innate selfishness. Even at this young age, however, she is willing to share things that are “hers”. The sharing comes only after you acknowledge that it is hers to give. It seems to me that the acts of possession, rather than exhibiting an intent to place her desires above others, is an attempt to demonstrate to others that she has desires and needs. My six year old son, although entering his petulant phase, went through this “mine” stage also and emerged from it with consistent desire to place the desires of others above his own. My wife and I have always tried to nurtured this trait, but I would suggest he displayed both empathy and sympathy towards others at an early age and that it came to him just as naturally as did his desire to possess things.
In his desire to assist others who seemed sad, Aidan often chose an item dear to him, or one that would make him happy, as an offering to the sad person (I don’t believe him to be unique in this trait as I have seen it exhibited many other youngsters at that age). Further, although the people he most often choose to share with were family or friends, these “random acts of kindness” were not limited to individuals who would or had provided him love, support or gifts i.e. the actions did not appear to be driven by quid pro quo intent – in fact, he seemed blissfully unaware that some might expect to get a return on kindness given. Rather, the drive behind his actions appeared to be – “Are they unhappy? If so, they must need something. I will give them something that makes me happy even though it will make ME sad to lose it.” In these instances, it was his self-awareness as to what made HIM happy that influenced his choice on how to make others happy. Thus, rather than an exhibition in selfishness, his “mine” phase seemed to help understand the concept of need/want and the consequences when needs/wants were denied.
As adults, our self-awareness is much more heightened. We have a better understanding of our needs whether they be physical, material, spiritual, intellectual, etc. Likewise, I would suggest, we also have a more developed understanding of others needs. Rather than some instinctual “my needs take priority”, I suggest we go through our lives balancing our own needs against the needs of others and often choose to place the needs of others before ourselves. We make these choices because of our self awareness and the driving force in resolving these decisions is not “selfishness” - though it may be. I can think of many extreme and not so extreme examples of individuals making sacrifices without any hope, thought or expectation of recompense (either monetary, spiritual or other).
In that we are born requiring others to care for us, it may be that rather than an innate selfishness, we become aware at an early age of the giving by others. As we age and our self awareness grows, we recognize – at some level - the incredible acts of selflessness and sacrifice that were required to maintain our existence. Isn’t it possible, rather than innate selfishness, that through generations and generations of parental (and at the dawn of time, tribal) sacrifice it became ingrained in us that survival depends on giving? To me, the idea of selfishness and its effect on our decision making is much more easily transferred in society than that the concept of unrecompensed self-sacrifice.
I guess my question is this – and maybe there is a Freudian explanation: If we are innately selfish, how did the concept of “self sacrifice without recompense” come into existence? In that, by definition, such actions would be contrary to our most fundamental programming. How could we learn them? Again, if selfishness is innate, how could total selflessness ever be learned -- or even contemplated as a desired behavior?
My father taught me: Do good because it is the right thing to do, not for any expectation of a return. If he and I are innately selfish, what possible benefit to either of us was gained by this lesson?
Ramblings over.