I recently had a discussion with my wife about this, and she largely persuaded me towards the following:
Consider the situation where a mother places herself in danger to save her child. We generally consider this a selfless act since it is seemingly done without regard for one's self. It is an automatic reaction. We reason, I suppose, this is because there is no time for the mother to reason out the dangers to herself, compare them to the dangers for the child, and weigh the benefits to herself. We might argue that, if the mother considered the effects of bereavement on herself if the child died, viewed the situation from the "selfish" perspective of her assessment of personal gain vs loss, we could say she was selfish, but in this situation such consideration was impossible because she had to act, or not, immediately.
I believe this is faulty reasoning.
Permit me to digress for a while. I have observed behavior as a fascinating topic for many years. Let me pick one example to illustrate a point. Consider the scenario when a cup of coffee slips from one's grasp. I have observed the response falls into one of three general categories:
1. The person's hand darts downwards in an attempt the catch the falling cup.
2. The person does not react.
3. The person raises their hand away from the cup.
Personally, I generally do (1), but I am embarrassed to say that on occasion I've been guilty of (3). In all cases, however, my desire was to prevent the coffee from falling. Was that an automatic, and therefore selfless, act? I say not. I believe this reaction was a result of my past experiences, and how I perceive them. That in fact my motivation is selfish. Consider the reasons my experience tells me this event is undesirable:
1. I know if the cup falls, it may break. I lose the cup, and have to pick up the pieces.
2. I know if the cup falls, the coffee will spill. I don't get to drink the coffee, and again have a mess to clean up.
3. I know if the coffee splashes, I might get some on me. This could cause pain, stain my clothing, etc..
That is not an exhaustive treatment, but the point is clear. I have had experience with falling things. I have some idea what will happen, and the results are undesirable to me. My reasons are selfish. I do not want this to happen. I have previously made this conclusion, so when presented with the situation, my reaction is a result of selfish choices, even though I do not have time to evaluate all the variables while the cup is falling. Automatic reaction does not necessarily equate to selflessness therefore. Furthermore, I have never dropped a glass jar of screws, but should this happen, I'm pretty sure I'd try to catch it. It would seem that my reaction to something falling is therefore generalized. The question then is can automatic reaction ever be a selfless act?
I say no. As we develop, we continually make evaluations of experiences and choices about how we might respond. Each time we make a choice, however, we do so in light of what is important to us; who do we want to be, what is our self image and how do we conform our decisions to fit that image. All of this is necessarily about self, and hence must be defined as selfish.
The word, unfortunately, carries a negative stigma, and so we resist this concept. We might prefer to consider ourselves as being at least a little noble, or charitable, or for some perhaps fearsome, dangerous, is their desired self image. But in all cases, the judgments we make for ourselves must be in the context
of ourselves. Selfishness is a natural and neutral condition, but people have confused this word with the behaviors which result from the choices we make during this process.
The process is neutral, our choices are not.
Consider: The mother once again rescuing her child, compared to a mugger opportunistically killing a passerby for $20. Are these actions the same? I feel it safe to say the common response will be "of course not". So does that contradict my assertion that both actions are selfish?
I think not. This situation highlights what I believe is a confusion between process and result. The mother has gone through the process of selecting what is consistent with her self image; perhaps nurturing, protective, and the like are the priorities she has chosen. She chooses responses which promote these perceived attributes. This is what she wants, this is about self; this is a selfish (and neutral) process. The result is that her behavior is such that many perceive her as noble, brave, etc. The mugger goes through the exact same, selfish process, and his choices too are based on his self image. The choice of self image for him, however, is very different. He is selecting responses by the same process, it is only that his criteria is such that his behavior in this example is judged "evil" by most people.
All behavior is selfish because our behavior is driven by who we are, and who we are is a long and complex process of choosing, and these choices
must be made consistent with what we want for ourselves, how we wish to be perceived even if only in our own eyes! The criteria for these choices is what others indirectly judge. I say "indirectly" because it is the manifestation of the sum of these choices in our behavior that others see. And this judgment is necessarily subjective.
Take a soldier in battle. It can be taken as a given that he has made decisions, made choices, about himself, and these choices result in behavior. When he shoots and kills an enemy, it is because of his choices. If you might argue he may have been compelled to these actions, I would counter that he nevertheless made choices. It may be that he was persuaded to change his criteria, or perhaps he had no strong basis for such decisions to begin with. He could even refuse (and choose instead to face the consequences). Circumstances may provide justifications for making different choices, but he still chooses to pull the trigger. In this case, his criteria may be a balancing of his imperative not to kill against his perception of the need to do it anyway. It is still his choice.
But I digress again. The point is that a process was gone through by the soldier to evaluate what he would do. The criteria he used may be unique to him in some degree, but the
process itself (evaluating against his self image) is the same as for everyone. I am laboring to distinguish between a process which is inherently neutral and selfish, and the purpose to which each of us employs this process.
Some may perceive him as brave, doing his duty, even heroic. Others however might consider him a murderer, a coward who was only saving his own life, and so on. Perception is therefore subjective. But our judgments of his actions should not be a judgment of the mechanical process (we all share) which
through his choices lead to those actions.
This leads me to a concept I developed a long time ago. The emotions we have are also neutral; neither good nor bad, yet often they take on inappropriate stigma just like "selfish".
Consider Pride for example. This often carries some negative connotations. Yet I say it is neutral. Pride may manifest itself as arrogance, vanity, superiority; attributes most see as "bad". It can also manifest itself as ethics, honesty, reliability; things most would admire. Also, there are grey areas. What of a person who always dresses immaculately? Some may label this as vanity (with negative intent), while others may see it as respect (for themselves, for their associates; with positive intent). The emotion itself is neutral; the manifestation of it is not, but is judged good or bad subjectively. I believe this holds true for all the emotions.
Pride, anger, envy, etc., are labels we use to group types of behavior into categories and to refer to these in conversation. Once again, we must not confuse a name with perceived results. They are two different things. Just as selfish processes are not the same thing as how our behavior is perceived.
To summarize. All of our character is evolved from our sense of self; the choices we make that conform to our self-image, hence our motives are definitively selfish. "Selfish" is inappropriately applied as a judgment of behavior. It is comparable to saying a gallon of milk is 10mph. There is no direct relationship of the terms. Under specific circumstances, we could say a gallon of milk moves at 10mph. "Selfish" in our context is an adjective describing a process of self, and under specific circumstances a relationship to behavior can be made, but "selfish" describes a mechanism, concepts of good and bad describe behavior. They are very different terms.
Coming back a last time to our mother. Let's escalate things by saying it is a total stranger she rescues. If asked why she did it, she might reply she didn't have time to think, she just reacted. If pressed, she might add that it was as simple as seeing someone in need, and answering that need. I would append to her statement, "...because that is the type of person she wants to be". It is a selfish motivation. It is only that we almost universally misapply the term such that it takes on a negative stigma. Being aware of that, if I witnessed the above act, and was interviewed and asked what I thought about her motives, I certainly wouldn't include "selfish" in my reply. I would consider her most heroic, and say so.
I assert that the processes by which she defined herself are selfish by definition. To me, that is devoid of any qualitative judgment. What I found heroic was a result of the sum of her choices which manifested in her actions. It tells me something about the criteria she used in making her choices; what sort of person she wants to be. And because I have some of the same criteria, I admire her actions.
I think if people could get their heads around this concept, there would be more tolerance about different ideas.
