Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Everybody is 100% selfish

  1. Mar 13, 2005 #1
    If you think about it, why do you do anything? Everything that one does is towards themselves. There is a reason why everybody does anything. If you help someone out, you are happy that you helped them out. If you bought somebody a gift, you could be happy that you bought the gift. Slaves did what they did because they did not want to die or whatnot. If you sacrifice yourself for something, you are doing it because you feel it is right and you feel better about it. Its amazing how some people don't realize this. If you do something, its because you want to.

    Then again, it all depends on your definition of selfishness ;)
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 13, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I'd say self-interested. Selfish has too many negative connotations and seems to imply that an action be done at the expense of another. Certainly not all human action qualifies in that regard.
  4. Mar 13, 2005 #3
    I agree. I have held and argued this view in the past couple of years without success, because the word "selfish" makes it too hard to admit because of the negative connotation (like loseyourname mentioned). I propose that we put together a better way of wording the idea so that it doesnt scare people away. lol Self-interest is better - more positive, but seems to me that it would take additional explanation.
  5. Mar 13, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Read Ayn Rand.

    - Warren
  6. Mar 13, 2005 #5
    Oh, another thought: What about a parent giving up his/her life for the life of his/her child? Is this still in self-interest or is something else behind it: such as genetic programming, social conditioning, etc... What do you guys think?
  7. Mar 13, 2005 #6
    You mean because of the "ego" theme? It is literature written by a person just like us. Although Anthem was an interesting read...
  8. Mar 13, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm aware that Ayn Rand was a person. :rolleyes:

    Her philosophy, logical positivism, includes at its heart the idea that all actions are done for selfish reasons. Several of her novels deal almost exclusively with this topic. I only bring them up because she has examined this selfishness theory quite thoroughly already.

    - Warren
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2005
  9. Mar 13, 2005 #8
    Thus I ask, "You mean because of the ego theme?" I wont be rolling my eyes at you though.

    I simply said that because we already agree with her position, reading more from the same view point isnt going to offer anything new.

    This is not to say that you shouldnt read her. May as well if it interests you...
  10. Mar 13, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    sometimes being a parent changes this "selfishness" you claim we all are.
  11. Mar 13, 2005 #10
    We do what we do because we have been programmed to do it by our genes. It would be possible for our genes to program a brain to always reference back to personal interest, but is it likely? Would you say that a computer program is doing what it does because the action is in its self interest? I think it is far more likely that we have been programmed with many different motivations that are not all unified under the umbra of "self interest."
  12. Mar 13, 2005 #11
    I say we just do the best we can with what we got. We got beliefs and morals too.
  13. Mar 13, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    This "selfishness," which really should be changed to "self-interested," also needs to be qualified to fall in line with current research. Self-interest has been found not to act at the level of the individual organism, but rather at the level of the individual gene. There is no distinguishing at the genetic level between you and your child. Your child is 50% you genetically, and studies have persistently found that organisms have an evolutionary logic that causes them to take exactly a 50% risk of their own death to ensure the survival of their children (in animals that display altruistic behavior of any sort). The likelihood of taking such a risk can actually be mathematically modelled depending on how closely related the person is to you. You are more likely to risk your life for your child than for your sibling, more likely for your sibling than for your cousin.

    None of these studies have ever been conducted on humans, so I have no idea if human altruism is equally predictable. The only point is that displaying altruistic behavior toward any member of one's in-group, and particularly toward one's own kin, does not in any way contradict the hypothesis that all animal behavior is self-interested (provided we qualify the hypothesis by saying that the self-interest is at the genetic level, rather than the organismic level).
  14. Mar 13, 2005 #13
    The evolutionary logic is not always in the interest of the organism. It's in the interest of the organism's genes, and the organism is not identical with its genes. In any case there are always inferior mutants who do not conform to the optimal behavior for propogating their genes, so their non-optimal behavior does not work in favor of their genes, so they can't even be said to be fully motivated by that.
  15. Mar 14, 2005 #14


    User Avatar

    Well, the presence of feeling "right" or "better" after an action is not sufficient evidence to prove that we acted with only self-interested reasons. People can feel pleasure or benefit from an action, even if they had no intentions of getting them.
    Also, there are cases where either a person chooses randomly (ie. all choices are thought to end up with the same consequence) or the consequence of the action is not known at all by the person. In at least these cases, action is simply instinct - not preceded by attempting to do what one feels is right or what would be good for self-interest. One could argue that even this is an egoistic action, and I won't offer any resistance.

    I'm pretty sure most people over the age of 2 and aren't deluded know this - everyone is self-interested (ie. all act in a way to benefit their self-interests/values). I think the biggest problem is that people don't believe that everyone is "selfish" - that everyone will sacrifice anyone and everyone just to serve their own interests. The difference is between "cut-throat-action" vs "self-interested-action".
    ^^ Has been said by loseyourname and Barbie already.

    However, the reason that no one is "completely" selfish is because we lack or are finite in POWER - we do not have absolute power over our recognized enemies. If one had absolute power (or felt strongly enough that he does), I'm sure that at least for that certain period of time, he would act 100% selfishly.
  16. Mar 14, 2005 #15
    Quantifications like 100%, and everybody, don't apply on this world, especially when describing human behavior. As much as spin masters would like a 100% response to every saleable ideation, it just doesn't happen. Universal selfishness implies that every action is a reaction to stimulus, that forwards immediate selfish goals.

    Each of us has a fire to feed, other than that, and the activities attendant to that, it is a field with many variables. So various is the experience that I submit, it is individual and unique and above categorization. I think that the sameness that runs through existence has to do with feeding our fires, and survival. I maintain that the structure and sameness, or even similar chaotic history, has to do with the "selfishness", or (survival) mode; the entire rest has to do with the doings of the universe in general, some of that set intersects with the sets of our doings, and more in a bland-to wondrous way, having more to do with the ongoing processes of the universe, and our link to them.
  17. Mar 14, 2005 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Though I can certainly see the logic of it - pretty much every action one takes can be shown to have a positive consequence for the person who takes it - but I don't buy it. I think it ignores the concept of "caring".

    I definitely need to read some of her work though...

    loseyourname - interesting idea, quantifiable altruism. I never considered that.
  18. Mar 14, 2005 #17
    Objectivism vs Logical Positivism

    Ayn Rand's philosophy was Objectivism.

    Greenspan and Rand didn’t hit it off. According to Nathaniel Branden, he was philosophically a logical positivist and economically a Keynesian, both doctrines anathema to Rand. “How can you stand talking to him?” Rand asked Branden. “A logical positivist and a Keynesian? I’m not even certain it’s moral to deal with him at all.” (Barbara Branden doesn’t remember it that way, and neither does Greenspan. She and Greenspan deny he was ever a Keynesian.)
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  19. Mar 24, 2005 #18
    I'll keep it simple.

    What on does, does for oneself. What is oneself? It's your beliefs, morality, values, your mental and physical being.

    If you believe that your life is less valuable then the life of anothers then you should have no problem risking yours when the situation arrives.
    If you believe that the physical and mental stimulation of a cigarette is more important then the long term effects of smoking or better then the suffering of the craving caused by addiction exceeds the pain of quiting then you will continue smoking.
    If you think one more moment in your miserable life isn't worth the pain then you will find a way to deal with that whether it involves murder, suicide or a mid life crisis then that is what will happen.

    Every action whether the outcome is what was expected or not is done because at the time you choose to do the action is what was the best possible action that you could think of doing in the time given. Whether you had a split second or a couple years to make that choice.

    Any selfish and altruistic act is based on actions meant for oneself. And we tend to consider much family, friends, race, life, matter as oneself. Depending on our views on life, universe or our compassion.
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2005
  20. Mar 24, 2005 #19


    User Avatar

    If an action were TRULY altruistic, then it is not done for one's self. To say that someone acts altruistically for selfish reasons is a contradiction of concepts.

    If you are instead invoking the possibility that we may psychologically delude ourselves into thinking we act altruistically, or we have deeper intentions than we realize, such that altruistic acts are in fact a misnomer and all acts are done for ourselves, then you might be right.

    Again, however, I will quote you the same arguments I posted before - that we can't be 100% selfish (even though I would agree that we are always looking over our self-interests).

    Thus, I it would be reasonable to state that everyone is self-interested, but assuming that we are all completely selfish would require more arguments.
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2005
  21. Mar 24, 2005 #20
    Maybe I should have said "seemingly altruistic"

    I do think it works 100% or completly.
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2005
  22. Mar 24, 2005 #21


    User Avatar

    Then explain how this is so. Or better yet, prove why all actions are simply selfish, and that it is not possible that actions can be only self-interested.
  23. Mar 24, 2005 #22
    Can you give me an example of why it isn't complete so I can see where our differences collide.
  24. Mar 24, 2005 #23


    User Avatar


    From one who understands their finitude, they must help others in order to survive or secure their power. But in order to get that help, you must secure the loyalty and trust of others. Surely, we do favors in order to keep the trust in order to secure our power (basically it's done for our self-interests). However, this does not mean that we would abandon and sacrifice anyone or everyone whenever it suits us (especially for those we care about). Yes, the reason we may not abandon or sacrifice the people for the sake of our own interests as well, but unfortunately, not every action involves thinking about all the worthy consequences to our self-interests. Some actions are simply done instinctively or by virtue of the value one has placed on them - we would still be considerate only to the extent that we sometimes think of other people's interests as well.

    I also won't go far into the technicality that we are not perfect - and could therefore never act selfishly 100% of the time.

    I agree that the word altruistic is a misnomer, but I still take the stand that if someone believed or actually had absolute power - they could be completely selfish.
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2005
  25. Mar 24, 2005 #24
    First I don't think proving self-interest wrong is possible because self-interest is pretty much the wings of selfishness.

    Well we humans as you put it in different terms are limited both mentally and physically and a part of our limits involve laws, morals and ways of controlling each other. It's a part of the power seekers long term plans of manipulation and immortality. Once one does the help using manipulation in mind and the people manipulated believe they act with loyalty and trust then loyalty and trust are new concepts that are added to our understanding of actions. Much like how altruistic behaviour is rather a concept than an actuality.

    What would you mean by instinctively? From my understanding every act we do is rooted to our experience. And if one did something because of the virtue of the value one has placed on them it is still a choice one has to make. If you value the path that has been chosen upon you by manipulators whether or not the intentions of manipulation are there more then you value your own freedom of choice then of course you will choose the best path which would be to act the already set path rather then deal with the confrontations and thoughts of failure.

    Perfection and absolute power is relative. One can have only the clothes they wear and feel perfect, one can own a country, be very wealthy and feel powerless. Our actions are linked to our mental limits and are tested by our physical limits. Our physical and mental pleasures and pains in life are added to our memories so when a similar situation arrives we are able to act sooner and yet sometimes seemingly instinctive. Like jumping from a snake before our mind identifies it as a garden hose. Our experience tells us that snakes are dangerous and so our body reacts to the shape of a snake even before we know its a snake for sure. The shape is a form of manipulation in the same sense of loyalty and trust. Don't get me wrong, the concepts are great and very well needed with the amount of humans and life that share this planet. I seek these meanings because I believe that we were all ONE at one point through my scientific beliefs and we are ultimately the same existance.
  26. Mar 25, 2005 #25


    User Avatar

    Sounds good to me, but very few people have the strength to seek power constantly. People take many breaks from that quest, or they may delude themselves temporarily into going against power. Thus, no matter what the english dictionary defines loyalty and trust are, it's still committed by people.

    I'm not sure where the confusion is - we simply act instinctively at some level, and having experience does not somehow free us completely from such a constraint.

    This seems to be a loaded argument - just because we follow the manipulators regardless of intentions, it does not mean that we are not acting freely. As we've agreed on, we may act on what we feel is best for our self-interests (all those actions being selfish is what I have a dispute about), but this doesn't necessarily mean that we are avoiding confrontation and thoughts of failure just because we "follow the manipulators" (even though I know of many cases where this is the case).

    Perfection and absolute power are concepts that can only be defined as perfect or absolute if you assume a limited number of properties, otherwise they are considered to be limitless. However, since you chose to assume that we are a NON-relative 100% selfish people, you are stating that we must endlessly and constantly act selfishly without mistake. This, in my experience is impossible for finite beings such as ourselves. It may be admirable, but alas, it does not happen.

    Seemingly instinctive? That's the definition of instinct. You may be assuming that I think of instinct as "intuition" or "spidey sense". I think of instinct as fixed response(s) to a given stimulus.

    The shape, I agree, is an invented property (that is useful to us), just as loyalty and trust are invented concepts for power as well. But again, at times we are just instinctively loyal or trustworthy - ie. without much, if any, conscious deliberation (instincts that are hopefully still acting on our interests).
    Secondly, some people may have misunderstood the genealogy of loyalty and trust - and they begin to value it for 'its own sake'. Thus, they may act on such a value for 'its own sake' -like trust or loyalty or any other concepts.

    I would only have more difficultly to counter the 100% selfish thing if you said that even our instincts are also 100% selfish - regardless of whether we act knowingly (accepted) or not (suppressed).
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook