What' is the point in being selfish?

[Strelok]

Your life is fairly insignificant (in comparison to the full spectrum of things) and short (in comparison to the full spectrum of things), why would someone want to make themselves the only focus, when the time they spend caring about themselves is short? You know others are going to be living long after you, so why not try to make peoples lives around you better, and people who are born after you better, or at least try not to make it worse for anyone else. To simply not care is a short, fruitless (imo) endeavour to make your short life better, potentially at the expense of others and others in the future.

[Elfdude]

Your life is fairly insignificant (in comparison to the full spectrum of things) and short (in comparison to the full spectrum of things), why would someone want to make themselves the only focus, when the time they spend caring about themselves is short? You know others are going to be living long after you, so why not try to make peoples lives around you better, and people who are born after you better, or at least try not to make it worse for anyone else. To simply not care is a short, fruitless (imo) endeavour to make your short life better, potentially at the expense of others and others in the future.

More appropriately why should anyone be selfless when game theory creates a perfect society of selfish people with no war, no crime (from sane people) and basically none of the failings of ours? The only requirement is no one works together.

IMO the reason is because people are inherently selfless/altruistic and that they become naturally more and more jaded as they progress. A child doesn't share not because they intend to hurt someone else but because they don't understand that two people can exist in different states.

[Oddsworm]

More appropriately why should anyone be selfless when game theory creates a perfect society of selfish people with no war, no crime (from sane people) and basically none of the failings of ours? The only requirement is no one works together.

IMO the reason is because people are inherently selfless/altruistic and that they become naturally more and more jaded as they progress. A child doesn't share not because they intend to hurt someone else but because they don't understand that two people can exist in different states.

Game theory does not nessarily have no failings. Unless ive studied game theory wrong (or im not there yet, only 4 weeks into the course), the prisoners dilemna still remains unsolved.


People act selfishly because it is rational.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

Your life is fairly insignificant (in comparison to the full spectrum of things) and short (in comparison to the full spectrum of things)

Ants are gigantic () in comparison to bacteria and minuscule () in comparison to an elephant.

The qualities of the projected object which we deem important to discern - and indeed can discern - depend on the scale ratio that is handled.
It should come as no suprise that selfishness, or it's opposite character trait selflessness, or any individual act, thought or endeavour during our "fairly insignificant" and "short" lives are likely to be utterly pointless in comparison to "the full spectrum of things".

[removeduser_4536284751384]

any individual act, thought or endeavour during our "fairly insignificant" and "short" lives are likely to be utterly pointless in comparison to "the full spectrum of things".

if a member of a british ground crew didn't accidently stick the door shut on montgomery's predessecors plane WWII may have ended differently.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

if a member of a british ground crew didn't accidently stick the door shut on montgomery's predessecors plane WWII may have ended differently.

The O.P. argued that because our lives are short and insignificant, selfishness is a fruitless endevour, concluding that therefore; we should not be selfish.

My objection to this was:

The qualities of the projected object which we deem important to discern - and indeed can discern - depend on the scale ratio that is handled.

Or in other words; the conclusion of the O.P. does not follow from reason, but merely from a shift in scale.

Per example; with the timeline of the universe as our scale of events, the occurence of WW2 and it's outcome are "fairly insignificant".
Should we now conclude that the outcome of WW2 was insignificant to us? Ofcourse not.

[Duke Lucifer]

No man is an island......


He's a peninsula


But yes, to be serious House, I agree with you. And I see many of the problems we face whether geopolitical, or environmental, as the result of the selfish greed of those in positions of power.

[Copperknickers II]

Your life is fairly insignificant (in comparison to the full spectrum of things) and short (in comparison to the full spectrum of things), why would someone want to make themselves the only focus, when the time they spend caring about themselves is short? You know others are going to be living long after you, so why not try to make peoples lives around you better, and people who are born after you better, or at least try not to make it worse for anyone else. To simply not care is a short, fruitless (imo) endeavour to make your short life better, potentially at the expense of others and others in the future.

Why should we care about other people? Pain, discomfort, cold, heat, etc, are all things we experience that we don't want to. Why on earth would we willingly experience these things with no benefit to ourselves? My only purposes in life are to sate my curiosity and avoid suffering.

[Manco]

Your life is fairly insignificant (in comparison to the full spectrum of things) and short (in comparison to the full spectrum of things), why would someone want to make themselves the only focus, when the time they spend caring about themselves is short? You know others are going to be living long after you, so why not try to make peoples lives around you better, and people who are born after you better, or at least try not to make it worse for anyone else. To simply not care is a short, fruitless (imo) endeavour to make your short life better, potentially at the expense of others and others in the future.

Because I'm only aware of other people's existence through my own experiences and senses.
Perhaps it's a somewhat near-solipsistic view, but other beings are only relevant because my being is aware of them. If my own being is gone, so too is their relevance.

[Monarchist]

Your life is fairly insignificant (in comparison to the full spectrum of things) and short (in comparison to the full spectrum of things), why would someone want to make themselves the only focus, when the time they spend caring about themselves is short? You know others are going to be living long after you, so why not try to make peoples lives around you better, and people who are born after you better, or at least try not to make it worse for anyone else. To simply not care is a short, fruitless (imo) endeavour to make your short life better, potentially at the expense of others and others in the future.

Humans don't act in "the full spectrum of things" all the time. We like our micro-worlds that we inhabit. Besides, if my life is fairly insignificant by your own admission, then all other lives are equally so. If this is the conclusion, then why be altruistic, seeing that everyone sucks and is worthless? Of course, I don't believe that conclusion or your proposition, because I have the suspicion that you are conflating self-interest and selfishness, as moderns tend to do. I will take your question more seriously when I know how you're defining "selfish" here.

[PointOfViewGun]

Your life is fairly insignificant (in comparison to the full spectrum of things) and short (in comparison to the full spectrum of things), why would someone want to make themselves the only focus, when the time they spend caring about themselves is short? You know others are going to be living long after you, so why not try to make peoples lives around you better, and people who are born after you better, or at least try not to make it worse for anyone else. To simply not care is a short, fruitless (imo) endeavour to make your short life better, potentially at the expense of others and others in the future.

Selfishness is kind of a natural instinct. Humans feel jealousy and they need to satisfy their ego. They do know that their selfish acts are in fact empty but as the bulk of their life is based on those lies they prefer not to face it. As people use only their own perspectives to understand the world lots of people believe that they're the center of the world thus believe in that those selfish acts are actually significant. We live in a world of illusions based on lies.

[swabian]

As a matter of fact, altruism and conscience are perfectly natural human features as well.

[Elfdude]

The only way to achieve something that affects the universe itself is to work together. No raindrop can fill an ocean sort of thing. Selfishness obtains singular goals for one person you can never do more than the natural limits of your body. Teamwork flattens mountains, as long as there are more people there is no limit to your ability.

[Strelok]

The only way to achieve something that affects the universe itself is to work together.

This. Scientific progress and survival of natural disasters as our race evolves is our hope to actually become a type 4 civlization eons from now.

[Big War Bird]

John Galt's Speech

mini-version

For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?

Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.

We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.

I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.

You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.

And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?

Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.

You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.

Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than its neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.

To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.

If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.

The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.

[Lupu]

Your life is fairly insignificant (in comparison to the full spectrum of things) and short (in comparison to the full spectrum of things), why would someone want to make themselves the only focus, when the time they spend caring about themselves is short? You know others are going to be living long after you, so why not try to make peoples lives around you better, and people who are born after you better, or at least try not to make it worse for anyone else. To simply not care is a short, fruitless (imo) endeavour to make your short life better, potentially at the expense of others and others in the future.

You selfish pig, you like helping others because it makes you feel happy, Outrage!
Helping others makes me feel happy, so does it many people.

[Argeus the Paladin]

I forgot what the name of this fallacy is, but it states that it is logically impossible to proceed from a statement of fact to a statement of "should". Which is exactly the problem of the OP: "Humans' lives are limited, therefore we should be selfless."

[Helm]

You can't ever take care of the needs of anyone else if you can't take care of your own. So that's a good point for it.

[Elfdude]

You can't ever take care of the needs of anyone else if you can't take care of your own. So that's a good point for it.

This is what I don't get, there's no reason the two of you can't take care of your needs (plural for two people) together. The work load decreases exponentially as more help out. I'm sure we've all done the dishes with two people and been amazed that a normally tedious and irritating chore is quick and easy with a second person.

Yes you can take care of your needs first, but if you work towards mutual benefit everyone's needs will be addressed better and faster.

I'm sure you'll never see an example in nature of a 'giving' flower or a 'giving' tree; however seeing mutualistic relationships that outperform singular relationship competition is the norm. If it wasn't for the fact evolution stumbled upon this mutualistic success so infrequently the success rate would easily make mutalistic relationships the standard.

The difference is we're past the point where we're governed by instinct. We can create mutualistic relationships where there were none with nothing more than our will to do so.

[Adrian]

Your life is fairly insignificant (in comparison to the full spectrum of things) and short (in comparison to the full spectrum of things), why would someone want to make themselves the only focus, when the time they spend caring about themselves is short? You know others are going to be living long after you, so why not try to make peoples lives around you better, and people who are born after you better, or at least try not to make it worse for anyone else. To simply not care is a short, fruitless (imo) endeavour to make your short life better, potentially at the expense of others and others in the future.

I do care for humanity for civilized society but that doesn't mean im not selfish I am I have a short time here I have to make the most of it im just a spec of dust in the long run so why not care for me the most and make my short existence more pleasurable even at the cost of someone else's ?



Humanity will continue without us the most we can do is try to make a difference and enjoy our time alive because all I have to look forward to is being worm food.