Almost every person only cares for themselves [Archive]

Rowan

04-10-2008, 05:01 AM

Almost every person only cares for themselves. How many of you support this statement?

I don’t support that statement, although I can understand how it is easy to come to this conclusion. People are all too often self-destructive. Also, if everyone (or the vast majority) were so purely self-interested we’d be living in a Stirneresque utopia (or dystopia depending on your priorities). It’s dangerous to be so idealistically reductionist.

Haphazard

04-10-2008, 05:06 AM

Eh, I don't agree...

It sounds too simple of a statement to explain the whole of human interaction. There is some 'care' for other people in there -- it may not be exactly the same as how humans 'care' for themselves, but there is something there.

DrEast

04-10-2008, 05:09 AM

Can I disagree with this statement on a grammatical basis?

merid

04-10-2008, 05:54 AM

How very cynical and I don't agree. Sure there is personal self interest involved in everything from doing extra hours at work to get a promotion to carrying the shopping bags because you feel like doing something nice for your partner.

TheLastMohican

04-10-2008, 07:06 AM

Can I disagree with this statement on a grammatical basis?

Be my guest. If you do not, I shall be compelled to.

I do not agree with the statement anyway. Consider types like INFJ's; They "need to be needed," and have a strong urge to help other people.

Alcuin

04-10-2008, 07:11 AM

Even those who don't like to care for others learn that, to some degree, they must do so. If you're completely alone and only take care of yourself, what motivates someone to grab something for you when you're sick? Have a car accident, and need to get to work? You'll befriend someone, and do favors for them so that you can depend on them in a tight spot.

punkyplatypus

04-10-2008, 07:31 AM

I do not support the statement.
I think most people have close friends or family who they also care about to some extent. The model INTJ with little to no emotion still sees importance in the knowledge and ideas other people have, which gives them value that the INTJ may consider as important or care worthy. Even the most self centered people tend to care for someone else to make themselves feel better; they love to be loved. I don't mean to argue semantics so I'm not sure if that counts as someone caring "only" about themself, but I certainly don't think, or at least hope that these sort of people are considered "almost" everyone.
I think one who only cares about oneself would show disdain towards others and probably refuse help from them. That person would probably be very bitter and have some sort of god complex. Eventually this attitude would probably lead to some sort of detrimental or illegal action(s) leading to this person being institutionalized in some sort of prison or asylum.
Or at least that's the scenario that runs through my mind.

Jakalwarrior

04-10-2008, 07:43 AM

People that somehow consider themselves worthy of being put infront of me make my top list of "people I want to strangle".

In my actions I always treat everyone equal. I only "care" for my friends and family but I am fair to everyone unless they have done something to make me act otherwise. I always hated going to friends houses and their parents gave them better treament than me, etc... Even other family members were sometimes preferential to their kids (Here we have 8 slices of pizza, my kids you get 2 each, neighborkid, you want some? oh here have this piece of crust) I was raised on fair and still believe very firmly in it. When the neighbor kids were at our houses they were treated exactly the same as us, maybe even better since they couldn't be punished other than being told to go home.
God I hate unfair people. People that cut in line. People that steal or bully. People that cut you off in traffic or drive without reguard for others. etc... *Choke* *Kick in ribs* *spit on*

thod

04-10-2008, 07:54 AM

Perhaps its because the objects of your love are all internal. Anything in the outside world is an example, a shadow of that which is within. All your energy is spent on yourself and your ego.

Other types exist in a sea of 'nowness' gaining pleasure and pain from external objects. Self sacrifice is not important when you do not exist.

EsoteriEccentri

04-10-2008, 08:00 AM

I support it.

TheLastMohican

04-10-2008, 08:04 AM

I support it.

Really! Do elaborate.

EsoteriEccentri

04-10-2008, 08:11 AM

Really! Do elaborate.

...

WELL.

Give me an example of someone not living for themselves, and I will try to prove that they are >,>

Maternal instincts and other instincts don't count, because I don't think they involve our free will.

TheLastMohican

04-10-2008, 08:16 AM

acyckowski

04-10-2008, 08:19 AM

I agree with what I think you're trying to say.

If you meant, "People are primarily interested in themselves," I would agree. Ultimately, all motivation comes from within. Even the "caring" types are driven to concern by their own interests; what seems strange to us is that their "own interest" is their emotional connection to other people. To expand on thod's first sentence, even if you "care" about somebody, the emotion initiates with you and is projected towards an object/person of your choice.

In general, even people who act out of "moral duty" or "nobility of cause" or "the benefit of others" arrive at their actions through a process of considered values.

I believe that truly selfless action is rare and reactive in nature: the Navy Seal who was awarded the MOH the other day acted selflessly in the true sense. He had just enough time to recognize the danger a grenade posed to those around him, and he threw himself on it. He recognized a danger and acted on the danger, knowing what would happen to him, but there's no way he had enough time to think about his actions in context of right/wrong, brave/cowardly, etc.

If none of this resonates with you, compare the following statements and see which ones "feel" right.

"I love you" vs. "You are loved by me."
"I hate you" vs. "You are hated by me."
"I would die for you" vs. "You are someone I would die for."

EsoteriEccentri

04-10-2008, 08:21 AM

INFJ's, as I mentioned before, "need to be needed." They have an urge to live their lives helping those around them.

Those who lived charitably:
Jesus Christ
Ghandi
Mother Theresa
Numerous Popes
Bhudda and subsequent Dalai Lamas (at least in my opinion)

These are all religious figures (with the quasi-exception of Ghandi), so you would have to determine whether the religion is that beneficial to the person in question.

But WHY did they do things they did, dedicate their lives to helping others?

If they don't help others around them, what will happen?
They won't fulfill their urge, they'll probably feel depressed. Perhaps guilty.

I'm guessing lots of the religious people felt that helping others was the right course in life, so it's only naturally they'd want to follow it.

But they're still ultimately helping themselves.

I don't think it's a question of whether what they're doing is helping the other at all, I think it's a question of their motives of wanting to help.

They feel like they have to, they feel a sense of purpose perhaps? Or they feel like they owe it to the other person, or even to "keep their souls clean."

I guess what really defines someone who doesn't live for themselves is the guilt that they would feel if they did.

Edit: Basically what acyckowski said.

TheLastMohican

04-10-2008, 08:23 AM

I think all of the above individuals would have felt guilty if they had not done what they did.

acyckowski

04-10-2008, 08:26 AM

Guilt and shame are interally-driven though. I don't feel guilty because of another's actions, I feel guilty about my own actions compared to my own standards of behavior.

sriv

04-10-2008, 08:40 AM

YAY Ghandhi!

This relates to objectivism. I almost agree with it.

Sometimes I feel that a lot of my material is going to waste, so I donate it. I do not need to be filthy rich so I can send some to charity and put some to savings. Utilitarianism is the philosophy of helping others to further the human race. It's a good idea, you should check it out.

acyckowski

04-10-2008, 08:48 AM

YAY Ghandhi!

This relates to objectivism. I almost agree with it.

Ghandi was an obectivist???? :huh:

Sometimes I feel that a lot of my material is going to waste, so I donate it. I do not need to be filthy rich so I can send some to charity and put some to savings. Utilitarianism is the philosophy of helping others to further the human race. It's a good idea, you should check it out.

Same here. I donate old furniture, clothes, and what-not to Goodwill or a similar charity. It's not because I care about whether I help the people who end up buying, or whether they even need help. It's because to trash a perfectly good piece of furniture, just because I don't want it anymore, is wasteful, and I value the conservation of resources.

Rowan

04-10-2008, 09:11 AM

Give me an example of someone not living for themselves, and I will try to prove that they are >,>

I take it you’re adopting the standard Stirner argument for egoism; that everyone is an egoist only some are involuntary egoists, which is to say, to quote Stirner:

Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist ... in short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, and abases himself (combats his egoism), but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of "being exalted", and therefore of gratifying his egoism. Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake... [on] this account I call him the involuntary egoist. ...As you are each instant, you are your own creature in this very 'creature' you do not wish to lose yourself, the creator. You are yourself a higher being than you are, and surpass yourself ... just this, as an involuntary egoist, you fail to recognize; and therefore the 'higher essence' is to you — an alien essence. ... Alienness is a criterion of the "sacred".

Whilst I agree with this, I think you are being reductionist; you have to look at the statement under discussion to see why:

Almost every person only cares for themselves.

Involuntary egoists are capable of caring for and scarifying themselves to others so as to gratify there egos. Furthermore, there is nothing prohibiting a true egoist from caring about others; they are not limited to caring only for themselves, just so long as they care primarily for themselves.

Rowan added to this post, 1 minutes and 27 seconds later...

Ghandi was an obectivist???? :huh:

I second that :huh:

youngblooded

04-10-2008, 09:53 AM

Hmm, seems quite alot of people disagree with it. And I'm not supporting the statement. Just wanted to get a couple of opinions on it. Well , I've thought that of most people at some point in time.

ChfMojoRising

04-10-2008, 10:28 AM

Give me an example of someone not living for themselves, and I will try to prove that they are >,>

I'm forgetting the name of the fellow, but just yesterday (or the day before ^^;;) Pres. Bush was giving a presenting the Medal of Honor for a Marine who died in battle recently. An extremist dropped a grenade near him and two squad mates. The marine leapt on top of the grenade, sacrificing himself to save the other two.

sriv

04-10-2008, 02:19 PM

Ghandi was an obectivist???? :huh:

No, I just had to mention Ghandhi and objectivism. Seperately.

SeaCzar

04-10-2008, 02:30 PM

Almost every person only cares for themselves. How many of you support this statement?

If only this was true!!!! There would be not Oprah-esque and reality shows. People magazine would (happily) go bust. The happy scenarios are endless.

Having said that, I care only for my immediate family and friends. The rest can basically piss-off.

sriv

04-10-2008, 02:45 PM

If everyone only cared for themselves:

...people would go on pleasurable killing sprees to gain more territory.
...police would abuse their powers.
...governments would become dictatorships.
...anarchism would reign.

Keep the list going!

Fej

04-10-2008, 02:45 PM

Almost every person only cares for themselves. How many of you support this statement?

I do

acyckowski

04-10-2008, 06:58 PM

If only this was true!!!! There would be not Oprah-esque and reality shows. People magazine would (happily) go bust. The happy scenarios are endless.

Set, point, match. Well done!

acyckowski added to this post, 0 minutes and 48 seconds later...

I do

Why do you think I care?

enfpchick

04-10-2008, 07:09 PM

I care for others :nice:

acyckowski

04-10-2008, 07:12 PM

I care for others :nice:

No you don't. You just feel that you do.

sriv

04-10-2008, 07:13 PM

If you feel so strongly that others do not feel, then why dont you try to refute my above reasons?

Desiderata

04-10-2008, 07:17 PM

No you don't. You just feel that you do.

Ouch.

I agree with the original statement - even those who do genuine good to the best of their abilities either get off on it somehow, or will feel guilty if they do not do it.

That being said, if you're a type that does feel good when you do good for others, it is pretty close to altruism because you'll only feel good if you're doing the best you can.

Maybe as human beings that is the closest to altruism we can get.

bubbles

04-10-2008, 07:31 PM

I guess you can argue that people do good things only to make themselves feel good. Your loved ones wouldn't love you if it doesn't make them feel good. People become philanthropist because it makes them feel better to be a charitable person and to make a positive difference in the world. People do something because they care about a certain thing, but they care about a certain thing only because it makes them happy...etc...etc. You can come up with an infinite number of arguments to make your point that people only care for themselves.

Naturally, we are all [slightly] egocentric since we have not seen the entire world or experience everything others have experienced, so it may seem that way. But to say that almost every person only cares for themselves is just incorrect, and an exaggeration at best.

Someone (I forgot who) wrote that maternal instincts do not count as free will. People socialize, love, help others, etc. People study, work, research, create, etc. Since people are naturally lazy, does that mean that working is not free will? Does socializing count as free will? What about loving your spouse, your children, your family, etc.?

Perhaps we only care about others because it makes us happy, but by definition, by caring about others, we are not only caring for ourselves.

Metamorphosis

04-10-2008, 07:34 PM

I agree that people care only for themselves with the exception of something they are willing to give up their life for. Barring that, what is one circumstance in which the individual is willing to do something that does not benefit them?

HeterodoxRobot

04-10-2008, 07:39 PM

There is a substantially large selfish component to every human act, period.

sriv

04-10-2008, 07:52 PM

acyckowski

04-10-2008, 08:46 PM

Or maybe this selfish component is so large that it blinds the person to not see the unselfish component? Think about the effects of being not selfish. To put it in the selfish point of view, think about how much you reap from doing a small favor.

Okay, jeez, now I'm in trouble. I followed your whole point.

Seems that the distinction most people are drawing is in whether I "only" care about myself, or whether I "first" care about myself. Your point is valid argument against "only," and for "first," which is not nearly as exclusive.

sriv

04-10-2008, 08:51 PM

DrEast

04-10-2008, 08:58 PM

Wait, is this returning to the question of whether altruism is technically possible?

To which I reply: That is purely a semantic argument. I'm not getting into it.

Rayden

04-10-2008, 08:59 PM

Almost every person only cares for themselves. How many of you support this statement?

I can never agree with any kind of general or absolute statement. To say everyone only cares for themselves is a bit too vague for me. I could see how you could make the argument that when people make decisions to help others it is typically to benefit themselves in the long run.

That being said, I have known people to help others with no additional benefit to themselves other than the satisfaction of helping someone else. I wouldn't consider that selfish though.

acyckowski

04-10-2008, 09:13 PM

I dont know if I followed you all the way through, but thats ok! I get myself, I win. Rofl. I just realized I use a lot of periods.

My J is getting the better of me. Can you re-word that?

Are you trying to say my point p00ns all?

I'm saying that you effectively argued against the question as stated in the topic. It's not "only" myself, because there is a known secondary effect.

I'm also saying that many people are ignoring the original question and answering it as if it was a matter of which is done more, caring for self or caring for others. And, I think you're making a good case that self-interest comes first, and others-interest is a necessary side effect.

acyckowski added to this post, 0 minutes and 48 seconds later...

I can never agree with any kind of general or absolute statement.

Yay for irony!

Rayden

04-10-2008, 09:17 PM

Yay for irony!

lol let me rephrase that then.

The only general or absolute statement I can agree with is that I can never agree with any general or absolute statements.

Did I make that better or worse? :p

TheLastMohican

04-10-2008, 09:19 PM

The only general or absolute statement I can agree with is that I can never agree with any general or absolute statements.

That statement is surprisngly similar to my "fundamental certainty," which drew a lot of fire. It has the same appearance of self-refutation.

Rayden

04-10-2008, 09:27 PM

That statement is surprisngly similar to my "fundamental certainty," which drew a lot of fire. It has the same appearance of self-refutation.

Yes I've read through that thread and the first thing that came to mind was the quote by Socrates..."One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing." And I could go on about how I agreed with most of what was said in that thread but to stay on topic....

I really cannot stand general statements. It's more of a personal thing I guess.

Rowan

04-11-2008, 01:52 AM

There is a substantially large selfish component to every human act, period.

True, insofar as every free human action originates from the self; however, how meaningful is this statement if people are still capable of caring for others? In the interests of avoiding reductionism shouldn’t there be a distinction between selfish in the philosophical egoist sense and selfish in the narcissistic egotistical, low empathy sense? I fear you are equating two concepts to reach a fallacious and pessimistic conclusion about the human condition.

bebegirl

04-13-2008, 12:44 PM

Almost every person only cares for themselves. How many of you support this statement?
I would put it that everyone acts in their own self interest all the time: caring for others could definitely be in a person's self interest...and vice versa...

futureperfect5

04-13-2008, 12:56 PM

Almost every person only cares for themselves. How many of you support this statement?
The gloomy conservative view is NOT my perspective ...
in fact, there is a lot of nature -- human and otherwise -- that points to the contrary ...

:suspicious:This is the Ayn Rand "objectivity" quotient that many Repoublicans were tooting a few years ago.

First, I know that any apparency of separation or division is an illusion.
Physics tells us that.

Second, every action has some domino potential.

Third, I live in connection and abundance --how could I care only for myself?:huh:

OddFactor

04-15-2008, 03:34 AM

INFJ's, as I mentioned before, "need to be needed." They have an urge to live their lives helping those around them.

Those who lived charitably:
Jesus Christ
Ghandi
Mother Theresa
Numerous Popes
Bhudda and subsequent Dalai Lamas (at least in my opinion)

These are all religious figures (with the quasi-exception of Ghandi), so you would have to determine whether the religion is that beneficial to the person in question.
Eh, the Buddha didn't even want to teach. He left his family, after naming his kid "hinderance," to travel and seek enlightenment alone. Once he found it, after leaving the ascetics, he did not plan on teaching anyone. He was forced to do so by a god.

And to your comment on them living their lives to help those around them: So if they lives their lives to help, then if they didn't help they'd be miserable because they wouldn't be doing what makes them happy. So, in essence, the help they give makes them happy and they are in a way doing so for themselves because they would not be happy if they didn't. No such thing as a selfless good deed.

athenian200

04-15-2008, 04:14 AM

Almost every person only cares for themselves. How many of you support this statement?

I'd agree that every person cares primarily for themselves, and that every action taken is meant for our own benefit in some way.

For instance, if I give money to a beggar, or help someone learn something, I do it because I feel good about helping someone, and seeing them happy. I'm still doing it to improve my opinion of myself, and to derive pleasure from the happiness of the other person via empathy, so it's still selfish.

The only way I might manage to do something truly kind would be if I didn't feel good about it. In other words, if I were to do something that didn't make me feel good about myself, and made the other person dislike me, and eventually the action turned out to be beneficial, then it would have been a true kindness. But I would never do something like that.

Even the desire to interact with others is selfish, but since most of us have that desire, we both satisfy one another's desire by interacting. In other words, selfishness doesn't preclude the possibility of working for mutual benefit.

Kitsune

04-15-2008, 05:18 AM

Almost every person only cares for themselves.

Inasmuch as all actions are in service to the psyche that produced the thought that lead to them, I consider this statement to be true.

Even Mother Theresa was trying to "feel Christ" in her life.

DrEast

04-15-2008, 08:23 AM

Inasmuch as all actions are in service to the psyche that produced the thought that lead to them, I consider this statement to be true.

Even Mother Theresa was trying to "feel Christ" in her life.

This is simply reducing the statement to "rational people act rationally", inasmuch as people will always act to attempt to achieve an end. But that's just a tautology.

It's not that people act according to their wills that's open to debate... that's obvious. It's that some people's wills lead them to acts that enrich others, and this is the only place the debate can have meaning. The fact that the people find such willfulness gratifying or satisfying has to be a moot point, or you've defined altruism out of existence before you've even started the argument.

Blacklustre King

04-15-2008, 10:08 AM

I do not support it at all, despite my obvious narcissism it is only skin deep. My own mother has always complained that I need to stop putting others needs before my own, so selfless have I been that I've not showered or eaten for days and weeks just to be there in service of whomever I have deemed worthy of it.

I forget myself and my own well being just to make others lives better. However by extension the better their lives are the better mine is but the real point is, mindless servitude helped me escape the chaos of my thoughts in chores. I feel peace of mind when I' am working my ass off.

Kitsune

04-16-2008, 05:06 AM

This is simply reducing the statement to "rational people act rationally", inasmuch as people will always act to attempt to achieve an end. But that's just a tautology.

It's not that people act according to their wills that's open to debate... that's obvious. It's that some people's wills lead them to acts that enrich others, and this is the only place the debate can have meaning. The fact that the people find such willfulness gratifying or satisfying has to be a moot point, or you've defined altruism out of existence before you've even started the argument.

True. My statement was more in support of the notion that all acts are inherently selfish; I made a leap that was unjustified.

DrEast

04-16-2008, 07:43 AM

True. My statement was more in support of the notion that all acts are inherently selfish; I made a leap that was unjustified.

That all acts are inherently selfish is true, inasmuch as no act is meant to defeat the end it is employed to achieve. But here's something interesting: In order to relieve the suffering of the world, say I give to charity, and am satisfied in doing so. Is the satisfaction the end of the giving, or the relief of the others, with the satisfaction coming from the proper application of means to ends that accompanies all acts? This is an important semantic distinction (we can define it either way, depending on whether we want to set philosophical happiness as a chief end, or if we want it to be the structure within which we all act).

Kitsune

04-17-2008, 04:49 AM

That all acts are inherently selfish is true, inasmuch as no act is meant to defeat the end it is employed to achieve. But here's something interesting: In order to relieve the suffering of the world, say I give to charity, and am satisfied in doing so. Is the satisfaction the end of the giving, or the relief of the others, with the satisfaction coming from the proper application of means to ends that accompanies all acts? This is an important semantic distinction (we can define it either way, depending on whether we want to set philosophical happiness as a chief end, or if we want it to be the structure within which we all act).

At present, it's my belief that the act is for the sake of sating one's own desire to act in a manner that is "beneficial" - the psychological state of mind of the hypothetical giver gives rise to the need to give, a need this Person X sates by the act of giving charity.

Once the act has been projected into the ether, I would propose that the real-world effect is inconsequential; think of how many of the people dropping money into the bell-ringing Santa's dish would be angry with you if you were to demonstrate, with objective evidence, all the ways their money is misused and misappropriated!

DrEast

04-17-2008, 06:26 AM

At present, it's my belief that the act is for the sake of sating one's own desire to act in a manner that is "beneficial" - the psychological state of mind of the hypothetical giver gives rise to the need to give, a need this Person X sates by the act of giving charity.

Once the act has been projected into the ether, I would propose that the real-world effect is inconsequential; think of how many of the people dropping money into the bell-ringing Santa's dish would be angry with you if you were to demonstrate, with objective evidence, all the ways their money is misused and misappropriated!

While they may well become angry, I would contest the statement that they would be angry with me.

Iconoclash

04-17-2008, 08:18 AM

I agree that most people are self-interested while there are few exceptions lurking among us who in times of dire need demonstrate their altruism.

The self-interested majority are not limited to interest in THEMSELVES alone, as the term suggests. But they are interested in things that affect and interest their world. Your world includes all the things that begin in you from your values and preferences, your ideas and theories, to your job and hobbies, to your family and friends.

Anything outside of that sphere is unconsciously objectified and deemed unimportant, by and large. So to THAT extent, I believe we are self-interested creatures. The majority of us. As with everything, there are proverbial exceptions to the rules; people who have unfounded capacities of caring beyond the things that are solely in their interest.