Selfishness

scanlas

Everyone is selfish, they do every action for their own good. If you give to charity you are doing it to feel good about yourself, to validate your identity or to relieve guilt etc...

With this as a given I've been thinking lately about what people really mean when they accuse someone of being selfish. I have come to the conclusion that what they really mean is " you broke the unwritten contract whereby everyone agrees to a set of rules which are meant to be mutually beneficial". Kind of like you scratched their back but then they didn't scratch your back, so it angers you because they broke the agreement. Things like good manners are part of this contract.

To validate my point I give the example of a man who works two jobs so his family can make ends meat. He is said not to be selfish, even though he is, he doesn't go around providing for other people's families. He does it for his own satisfaction. If that man decided to pack his bags and leave his family he would called selfish. So basically the man is said to be selfish when he breaks the unwritten contract of mutual cooperation. Then he is said to be selfish. So the way the word selfish is used in society is really used to describe a person who doesn't uphold their part of the implicit agreement.

Ickle Magoo

It is impossible to be truly altruistic if you include getting some kind of self-satisfaction or quelling a desire to help as a gain for oneself. I would define selfish as thinking only of oneself or benefiting oneself at the deliberate detriment of someone else. As in all such definitions, there are multiple cases in the grey margins that are an exception to the general rule.

If you make the default position selfish because you've ruled even fairly selfless acts as driven primarily by our own selfishness then the definitions become meaningless. Even the most charitable act would be selfish and selfless by equal measure and on a par with the most tastelessly greedy and self-interested.

AARRRGH

Scanlas, I agree with you.

I also think selfishness incorrectly has a bad name. You only have one life, so it makes sense to live it the way you want to live it. As long as you're not a bad person, being selfish won't harm people.

For example, abandoning your children means you are a bad person; the fact that it is selfish is irrelevant.

I have been described as a selfish person, yet those same people would also describe me as kind and loving.

Earthhorse

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would define selfish as thinking only of oneself or benefiting oneself at the deliberate detriment of someone else.

I agree. Selfish is not about doing things for oneself, that isn't selfish; but doing things for oneself without considering the impact on others is selfish.

miec

I make a distinction between selfishness and self centerdness. I am a selfish person, I put myself first, I used to live my life according to other people's expectations because I wanted their approval all the time or I felt guilty or I didn't want to make waves, as a result I was miserable and resentful a lot of the time. Now I have become selfish, I do something because I want to and equally I won't do something when I don't want to. As a result I break the contract that you have mentioned scanlas many times because I now operate on the premise that if someone else chooses to do something for me they do it because they want to, if they do it with the intention of manipulating me then they will end up with egg on their face, simple as.

Using your example of the man who works two jobs for his family, he might be doing that and everyone considers him to be a great provider and unselfish but if it is at the expense of his family and spending time with them then who is benefitting, maybe he is using work to escape family obligations, or a lonely marriage, or he is obsessed with material wealth or his wife nags him to bring more money in and provide for her so he does it for a quiet life, so selfishness here becomes complex.

I think being selfish is a good thing, it is very honest but it pisses a lot of people off because you don't play the manipulation game, whereas if we all admit to being selfish then when we give it is more honest, there is freedom in it and it means there are no expectations and therefore, no dissapointment. If I give I do it because it pleases me and I don't expect anything back so I am in happier place having adopted selfishness as I see it.

A person who is self centered is someone who is unable to accommodate the validity of other. For instance you are at a social function and someone talks at you incessently, they have no interest in you as a person, you are just someone with a pair of ears who will listen to them boast or moan or whatever. Another example is someone who makes extremely unreasonable demands on another person and doesn't consider the impact they are having, or even down to people who park in stupid places that holds up the traffic, that is self centeredness, according to them they are the only ones who matter. I think a distinction needs to be made between selfishness which is healthy and self centerdness which is very unhealthy and I think the tit for tat mentality is more about self centeredness and manipulation than being selfish.

Dades

I've always thought this to be the case as well. That is, there are no completely unselfish acts due to the satisfaction or easement of conscience involved.

It's a kind of a stark reality - and one I'm surprised hasn't been challenged yet on this thread.

And I agree with the OP's point - selfishness in any derogatory sense should really only apply where an act to appease oneself actually has the opposite negative effect on someone else.

Dades

Dades wrote: »

And I agree with the OP's point - selfishness in any derogatory sense should really only apply where an act to appease oneself actually has the opposite negative effect on someone else.

Ahh, but who determines if there is a negative effect? I went to counselling a few years back regarding some issues with depression, self-worth, and feelings of betrayal. The counseller told me to stop thinking about how my actions affected other people. To stop being on tippy toes simply because anything I might decide to do might impact on other peoples lives. And I've found he was right. My life is much better since I took that advice to heart.

The point is that anything you do has the ability to affect someone else. You can't live your own life wondering how you might step on someone elses toes. If you do, (speaking from personal experience) you'll never relax, and ultimately will make your own life seriously more difficult. Most people don't think about other people when they make a decision with the exception of the closest individuals or a family. No reason for you not to do the same.

Selfishness is a guilt trip designed to keep us in a social box. do what makes you happy, and within the law. Simple. Bugger the rest.

scanlas

There are various unwritten contracts at work all the time between different people. A family might have an unwritten contract whereby you ask someone if they want anything when you go to the shop. If you don't ask you are selfish. But if you don't ask your neighbour that is not selfish.

When you are walking through a crowded street there is an unwritten contract between everyone that you don't push people out of the way, if you do you are rude or selfish and broke the agreement.

Kooli

Scanlas I think it's more simple to think of it as the other posters have put it rather than as the breaking of an unspoken agreement.

It's just about doing things for your own benefit without thought to the negative impact on other people. In your original example, the man who leaves is seen as selfish if he is putting his needs ahead of the needs of his family, not because he broke an agreement. Not every man who splits up from his wife is seen as selfish, so it's not about the agreement, it's about the motivation behind the act.

And klaz wrt to your counselling experience, I imagine the counsellor was telling you not to take responsibility for other's responses to your actions, not necessarily telling you to be 'selfish' in the way I'm talking about it. For example if a girl marries the man she loves despite her parents not liking him, is she 'selfish'? Most of us would say no. But a girl who worries too much about the impact of everything she does on others would not marry that man. We can't take responsibility for how people react when what we have done is not nasty or cruel. However there are times when what we have done is nasty or cruel or selfish, and that's different. I hope I'm being clear...

scanlas

Kooli wrote: »

Scanlas I think it's more simple to think of it as the other posters have put it rather than as the breaking of an unspoken agreement.

It's just about doing things for your own benefit without thought to the negative impact on other people. In your original example, the man who leaves is seen as selfish if he is putting his needs ahead of the needs of his family, not because he broke an agreement. Not every man who splits up from his wife is seen as selfish, so it's not about the agreement, it's about the motivation behind the act.

And klaz wrt to your counselling experience, I imagine the counsellor was telling you not to take responsibility for other's responses to your actions, not necessarily telling you to be 'selfish' in the way I'm talking about it. For example if a girl marries the man she loves despite her parents not liking him, is she 'selfish'? Most of us would say no. But a girl who worries too much about the impact of everything she does on others would not marry that man. We can't take responsibility for how people react when what we have done is not nasty or cruel. However there are times when what we have done is nasty or cruel or selfish, and that's diff
erent. I hope I'm being clear...

I don't think your explanation accurately describes what is perceived as selfish.

If two candidates compete for a job, it is not considered selfish if one of the candidates does not consider the negative effect on the other candidate of being succesful. Reason being is there is no unspoken agreement of mutual benfit between them any further than being civil to each other. Ie being civil benefits both so they are both agree to be civil. Letting the other candidate have the job does not benefit both so there can be no unspoken contract.

The unspoken contracts I speak of are agreements we've made without realising it. The unspoken contracts exist because they benefit the group as a whole. Situations will exist where it will benefit an individual to break the contract. Becoming unpopular amongst the other parties in the contract and being called selfish is the deterent from breaking contract. If you go around breaking these contracts you will not be liked.

Valmont

What about the man who refuses to give money to charity? Should he be labeled as selfish? I don't think that putting one's needs ahead of the needs of others is a bad thing either.

I don't think that selfishness should necessarily mean getting ahead at the expense of others. What about someone who beats other applicants for a job? Their success is harming others in a very real sense but there is nothing wrong with that in this instance.

Kooli

Kooli wrote: »

It's just about doing things for your own benefit without thought to the negative impact on other people. In your original example, the man who leaves is seen as selfish if he is putting his needs ahead of the needs of his family, not because he broke an agreement. Not every man who splits up from his wife is seen as selfish, so it's not about the agreement, it's about the motivation behind the act.

Hardly... its the perception of the people judging the person for their actions or inaction.. Selfishness is about people passing sentence over other people.

And klaz wrt to your counselling experience, I imagine the counsellor was telling you not to take responsibility for other's responses to your actions, not necessarily telling you to be 'selfish' in the way I'm talking about it.

Ahh no.. I had the sessions and I asked the questions. I didn't notice you in the room during the sessions. The counselor took the stance of "**** IT". A rather interesting book as well. In any case, its more about not thinking about how your actions are going to affect other people because with the exception of a few "obvious" actions few really matter.

For example if a girl marries the man she loves despite her parents not liking him, is she 'selfish'? Most of us would say no. But a girl who worries too much about the impact of everything she does on others would not marry that man. We can't take responsibility for how people react when what we have done is not nasty or cruel. However there are times when what we have done is nasty or cruel or selfish, and that's different. I hope I'm being clear...

Clear? I have lived in China where any woman who married out of love against her families wishes would be ostracized by the neighbourhood community and the family.... Whereas here in Ireland, it wouldn't have such an impact.

This is about society & culture. Its about the informal "rules" that a society places on people. Being told you're being selfish is designed to create guilt, and ultimately force someone to back down from their previous action/decision. Maybe once it served a purpose, but now it's gone beyond a guide into a whip to beat people over the head with.

I am selfish. I look to my own life first. I seek to make my life work well, and everyone & everything else is secondary. THAT is selfish. I've just found out that I don't need to feel guilty about it anymore... :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

scanlas wrote: »

...If two candidates compete for a job, it is not considered selfish if one of the candidates does not consider the negative effect on the other candidate of being succesful....

But neither candidate decides who gets the job. The successful candidate is chosen by the employer based on who is best qualified to fill the position. Unless they are slugging it out for the post & it's going to last man standing, it's not one of the candidates deliberately stepping on the other. It's may the best man win, which is a slightly different contract.

Kooli

Deleted User wrote: »

I am selfish. I look to my own life first. I seek to make my life work well, and everyone & everything else is secondary. THAT is selfish. I've just found out that I don't need to feel guilty about it anymore... :rolleyes:

Well if you would hurt others in order to get what you want, as a rule, because what you want is more important, then yes you are selfish.

But I don't imagine that is what you do. I imagine that you do good things that benefit yourself, but occasionally put others out, and you have quite rightly decided not to worry about such effects on others.
I seriously doubt that you never think of the effect your actions have on others.

And I don't think that selfishness is only about the judgment of others in order to create guilt. I think we each have our own internal moral compass that tells us whether something is selfish or not.

And as for the job interview situation. Selfishness is about seeing your own interests as more important than those of anyone else. In the job interview situation you are seeing them as equal. That's not selfish.

scanlas

Kooli wrote: »

Well if you would hurt others in order to get what you want, as a rule, because what you want is more important, then yes you are selfish.

But I don't imagine that is what you do. I imagine that you do good things that benefit yourself, but occasionally put others out, and you have quite rightly decided not to worry about such effects on others.
I seriously doubt that you never think of the effect your actions have on others.

And I don't think that selfishness is only about the judgment of others in order to create guilt. I think we each have our own internal moral compass that tells us whether something is selfish or not.

And as for the job interview situation. Selfishness is about seeing your own interests as more important than those of anyone else. In the job interview situation you are seeing them as equal. That's not selfish.

Again your description of what is percieved as selfishness is off target. We all see our own interests as more important than other people's. But we don't percieve everyone as selfish.

If a lesser qualified candidate got the job over someone better qualified who deserves it more it isn't seen as selfish that the lesser qualified candidate accepts the job offer. This is assuming there are only two people going for the position and they know each other but aren't friends in any way.

scanlas

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But neither candidate decides who gets the job. The successful candidate is chosen by the employer based on who is best qualified to fill the position. Unless they are slugging it out for the post & it's going to last man standing, it's not one of the candidates deliberately stepping on the other. It's may the best man win, which is a slightly different contract.

Well it's not may the best man win. The agreement is we both go for the job and whoever the employer picks gets the job. If one of the candidates were to blackmail the employer in some way that would be seen as a breach of the agreement and would therefore be percieved as selfish.

By the way there are some crossovers between being selfish and immoral. The contract idea works for both.

Kooli

scanlas wrote: »

Again your description of what is percieved as selfishness is off target. We all see our own interests as more important than other people's. But we don't percieve everyone as selfish.

Selfishness is about actions, not about thoughts or feelings. Yes my own interests are more important to me, but I don't always act in such a way that puts my interests ahead of all others'.

I sometimes do. These are the times I'm being selfish.

Kooli

And anyway a lot of the time being 'selfless' and 'selfish' are the same thing, as most have already pointed out. It is in our best interests to look out for the people around us and not act selfishly all the time.
But not everyone does this, and these people get labelled as 'selfish' when they act in their own interests at the expense of everyone else's.

I think it's simple enough, and I don't see what the idea of contracts adds to our understanding of it. That's not to say it doesn't make sense.

scanlas

Kooli wrote: »

Selfishness is about actions, not about thoughts or feelings. Yes my own interests are more important to me, but I don't always act in such a way that puts my interests ahead of all others'.

I sometimes do. These are the times I'm being selfish.

We are always acting selfishly through our actions, if you have ever bought any item you didn't need such as a T.V or laptop you were acting selfish. You could have saved lives with that money in third world countries. How many lives could you have saved if you gave your money you spend on nights out to people who really need it?

Ickle Magoo

scanlas wrote: »

Well it's not may the best man win. The agreement is we both go for the job and whoever the employer picks gets the job.

I am assuming the employer will pick the person best suited to the position they are offering, that's may the best man win. :cool:

scanlas wrote: »

If one of the candidates were to blackmail the employer in some way that would be seen as a breach of the agreement and would therefore be percieved as selfish.

I don't think bribery comes under the banner of selfishness. Greed, desperation and immorality perhaps - but not selfishness. It is in the hands of the prospective employer whether the bribe will be successful. No candidate is deliberately stepping on the other, they are equals until the employer decrees otherwise. Even offering a bribe does not ensure the candidate of the job, it's still up to the employer whether or not to accept the bribe.

scanlas wrote: »

By the way there are some crossovers between being selfish and immoral. The contract idea works for both.

I'm not sure it works any better with subjective morality than it does for selfishness.

scanlas

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I am assuming the employer will pick the person best suited to the position they are offering, that's may the best man win. :cool:



I don't think bribery comes under the banner of selfishness. Greed, desperation and immorality perhaps - but not selfishness. It is in the hands of the prospective employer whether the bribe will be successful. No candidate is deliberately stepping on the other, they are equals until the employer decrees otherwise. Even offering a bribe does not ensure the candidate of the job, it's still up to the employer whether or not to accept the bribe.



I'm not sure it works any better with subjective morality than it does for selfishness.

Your right in that the blackmail might not be described as selfish. In that situation there is an unwritten moral contract of some type.

That doesn't change the fact that all acts of percieved selfishness break an implicit agreement or unwritten contract as I have described it.

It's by far the best description of what people perceive as selfishness out there that I've come across.

Valmont

What exactly do we mean by "hurting others to get ahead"? I think defining this clearly could help the discussion greatly.

Kooli

Kooli wrote: »

Well if you would hurt others in order to get what you want, as a rule, because what you want is more important, then yes you are selfish.

But I don't imagine that is what you do. I imagine that you do good things that benefit yourself, but occasionally put others out, and you have quite rightly decided not to worry about such effects on others.
I seriously doubt that you never think of the effect your actions have on others.

And I don't think that selfishness is only about the judgment of others in order to create guilt. I think we each have our own internal moral compass that tells us whether something is selfish or not.

And as for the job interview situation. Selfishness is about seeing your own interests as more important than those of anyone else. In the job interview situation you are seeing them as equal. That's not selfish.

You're missing the point completely. being "Selfish" does not exist for me anymore. It means nothing. When you describe what selfish is, you're trying to project that idea on to me.. and its not sticking. However I choose to live my life is of no concern to others.. and hurting people doesn't come into making my life better. Its not about being "selfish" or the "generous", its about living your own life.

I think you're all too hung up on the word. Think about what it is from a realistic & livable point of view.

If you got thirty people to interview, and asked them all separately what being "selfish" was, you'd get plenty of different answers. Because its a perception. Your selfish concept is not going to be the same as someone elses. Its not written in stone. Its not really written anywhere. Its just thrown at you when you "do something wrong" in the eyes of the accuser.. Using a phrase that is modified depending on the user.. and the receiver.

Earthhorse

But you can say the same thing about any adjective, klaz; that it's all in the eye of the beholder. Where does that leave us?

Similaraly, by scanlas's definition, everything we do is selfish, so what use is the word at all? What does it actually describe if it's inherent in every action we perform?

By stripping words of any real meaning, I actually think it is you who is hung up on the word, rather than the concept it is trying to describe. The fact that people use it inappropriately in life doesn't change the fact that there are many contexts in which it is useful and accurate.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

But you can say the same thing about any adjective, klaz; that it's all in the eye of the beholder. Where does that leave us?

Why does it have to leave you anywhere? Why is it so important to know? It is in the eye of the beholder. Can you really disagree?

By stripping words of any real meaning, I actually think it is you who is hung up on the word, rather than the concept it is trying to describe. The fact that people use it inappropriately in life doesn't change the fact that there are many contexts in which it is useful and accurate.

For you, maybe. If it works for you, no worries. Look. If someone says that I'm being selfish, then it is in fact them being selfish... Because what I do, is not fitting in with how they "perceive" I should be acting.

I haven't considered anything that someone else has done as being selfish since I had those sessions. I don't really care what other people do as long as they don't seek to hurt me or mine. Just as I won't seek to harm other people. Its nothing to do with being selfish.

Ickle Magoo

scanlas wrote: »

There are various unwritten contracts at work all the time between different people. A family might have an unwritten contract whereby you ask someone if they want anything when you go to the shop. If you don't ask you are selfish. But if you don't ask your neighbour that is not selfish.

I think the term selfishness is also only applied to behaviours within the realms of practicality. It's easy to ask everyone in the same house as you whether they want something from the shop, other than the added effort of shouting "does anybody want anything from the shop" and whatever effort is required to find and retrieve those items, it doesn't really put us out. It's neither possible nor practical to ask the whole town if they want something so it's not considered selfish, just sensible.

scanlas wrote: »

When you are walking through a crowded street there is an unwritten contract between everyone that you don't push people out of the way, if you do you are rude or selfish and broke the agreement.

Rude yes, but selfish? If you are pushing them out the way to get to something that person would have reached first if you hadn't physically pushed them out the way, that could be considered selfish - to just walk down the street randomly pushing people serves no purpose and so isn't selfish - it's just odd.

This "contract", do you mean as part of something more general, like human nature, manners or some variation of social anthropology? If you deviate from the societal norms then you can be considered any number of things depending on the deviation being made ? A kind of moral relativism?

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

Why does it have to leave you anywhere? Why is it so important to know? It is in the eye of the beholder. Can you really disagree?

Why anything? Can you really disagree that we can perform the same exercise with almost all words? And that would leave us in a place where language was so useless that nobody could ever say anything meaningful to anyone else, which is important to know.

For you, maybe. If it works for you, no worries. Look. If someone says that I'm being selfish, then it is in fact them being selfish... Because what I do, is not fitting in with how they "perceive" I should be acting.

They might be being selfish, they are being judgemental. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with that either.

I haven't considered anything that someone else has done as being selfish since I had those sessions. I don't really care what other people do as long as they don't seek to hurt me or mine. Just as I won't seek to harm other people. Its nothing to do with being selfish.

And if that works for you, no worries. If you find the concept of selfishness useless in your life, fair enough, but then there's no need to change the definition of it.

Kooli

Deleted User wrote: »

Why does it have to leave you anywhere? Why is it so important to know? It is in the eye of the beholder. Can you really disagree?



For you, maybe. If it works for you, no worries. Look. If someone says that I'm being selfish, then it is in fact them being selfish... Because what I do, is not fitting in with how they "perceive" I should be acting.

I haven't considered anything that someone else has done as being selfish since I had those sessions. I don't really care what other people do as long as they don't seek to hurt me or mine. Just as I won't seek to harm other people. Its nothing to do with being selfish.

Well couldn't you just say the same about any word? Like 'nasty', 'cruel', 'manipulative', 'stingy', ANY word.
If someone described me as any of those things, I could come back and say that word is meaningless to me and is just their projection on to me to make me feel bad, and I am just living my life.

But the truth is these words do mean something.

You said "I don't care what other people do as long as they don't seek to hurt me or mine." So what if they do something that hurts you to get ahead or to serve their own purposes? I would call this selfish. You would put another word on it. But it's the same thing.

I agree with Earthhorse that you are the one who is hung up on the word itself.

You seem to be saying that putting yourself first and doing what makes you happy is not selfish. Maybe you used to call that selfish and don't see it that way anymore and that's great.

I would agree with you about that. But I don't agree with you that there is no such thing as a selfish act.

scanlas

To clarify,

I believe pretty much everything we do is selfish and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, you can selfishly help other people, you still helped other people.

When I use the contract idea I am using it to describe what people generally perceive as selfish. The same contract idea can be used for many other things such as rudeness or being evil.

The whole point of these contracts is for the benefit of every party involved in the contract. People with different relationships benefit from different contracts. To a stranger all that is required in the contract is that you treat eachother with a certain level of respect ie don't walk up arbitrarily and punch them in the face. This contract benefits strangers everyone involved in the relationship of stranger to stranger. A contract whereby you ask strangers what they want in the shop is not mtually beneficial so it doesn't exist. ie it's not rude or selfish not to ask a stranger if they want anything in the shop.

Kooli

scanlas wrote: »

To clarify,

I believe pretty much everything we do is selfish and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, you can selfishly help other people, you still helped other people.

When I use the contract idea I am using it to describe what people generally perceive as selfish. The same contract idea can be used for many other things such as rudeness or being evil.

The whole point of these contracts is for the benefit of every party involved in the contract. People with different relationships benefit from different contracts. To a stranger all that is required in the contract is that you treat eachother with a certain level of respect ie don't walk up arbitrarily and punch them in the face. This contract benefits strangers everyone involved in the relationship of stranger to stranger. A contract whereby you ask strangers what they want in the shop is not mtually beneficial so it doesn't exist. ie it's not rude or selfish not to ask a stranger if they want anything in the shop.

I agree with you that everything we do is guided by self-interest so could be called 'selfish'. I don't think anyone has disagreed with that fact, so we can probably leave it aside. What we are discussing is what is termed 'selfish' in daily interactions.

I just don't see what the idea of 'contracts' adds to that notion of selfishness. I also don't agree with your example - who would call someone 'selfish' for punching a stranger arbitrarily in the face? I can think of a lot of other words, but 'selfish' isn't one of them. Selfishness is about personal gain at the direct expense of others.
Yes there is an 'unspoken agreement' not to knock others over in the street. But knocking others over is not selfish. There is an 'unspoken contract' that if someone asks you how you are, you answer them. But to stay silent and not answer them isn't necessarily 'selfish'. However skipping a queue is selfish, because it is about personal gain at the direct expense of others. It is about putting one's own rights ahead of the rights of all around you. That's what I think people mean by selfishness.

I'm all about parsimony really, so I don't see why we need to add in talk of contracts or how that increases our understanding of what selfishness is. It just muddles the issue because there can be broken 'contracts' without selfishness, so it is not a sufficient explanation. Seems redundant to me.

scanlas

Kooli wrote: »

I agree with you that everything we do is guided by self-interest so could be called 'selfish'. I don't think anyone has disagreed with that fact, so we can probably leave it aside. What we are discussing is what is termed 'selfish' in daily interactions.

I just don't see what the idea of 'contracts' adds to that notion of selfishness. I also don't agree with your example - who would call someone 'selfish' for punching a stranger arbitrarily in the face? I can think of a lot of other words, but 'selfish' isn't one of them. Selfishness is about personal gain at the direct expense of others.
Yes there is an 'unspoken agreement' not to knock others over in the street. But knocking others over is not selfish. There is an 'unspoken contract' that if someone asks you how you are, you answer them. But to stay silent and not answer them isn't necessarily 'selfish'. However skipping a queue is selfish, because it is about personal gain at the direct expense of others. It is about putting one's own rights ahead of the rights of all around you. That's what I think people mean by selfishness.

I'm all about parsimony really, so I don't see why we need to add in talk of contracts or how that increases our understanding of what selfishness is. It just muddles the issue because there can be broken 'contracts' without selfishness, so it is not a sufficient explanation. Seems redundant to me.

I should have really named this thread social violation and if you break any contract you are a social violater whether it is selfish, rude, bad or whatever.

You say that there can be broken contracts without selfishness, then there wasn't a contract in the first place. By definition a contract is an agreement if broken by any party then that party is percieved as selfish or rude etc. All acts of percieved selfishness can be described with the contract idea. You are selfish if you break the rules of a mutually beneficial mechanism that exist between the parties involved. So what I'm saying is you can only be percieved as selfish if you don't play your part in the mutually beneficial arrangement People aren't percieved as selfish for puttin their interests ahead of other people so long as they don't break a mutually beneficial sitiuation while doing so.

You say putting your rights ahead of those around you is perceived as selfish, but people do that all the time without being perceived as selfish. In a que it is in everyone's benefit if the rest of the people don't skip, so there is an equilibrium that people don't skip.

Actions that are in your self interest ahead of other people's interest aren't perceived as selfish unless the action you take breaks the mutually beneficial dynamic.

Look at business for example, you can set out to dominate the marketshare thus putting your competitors out of business and it's not percieved as selfish or any sort of social violation. Unless of course there is a cartel arrangement and then you will be seen as selfish or a social violater of some sort.

Kooli

scanlas wrote: »

You say that there can be broken contracts without selfishness, then there wasn't a contract in the first place. By definition a contract is an agreement if broken by any party then that party is percieved as selfish or rude etc. All acts of percieved selfishness can be described with the contract idea. You are selfish if you break the rules of a mutually beneficial mechanism that exist between the parties involved. So what I'm saying is you can only be percieved as selfish if you don't play your part in the mutually beneficial arrangement People aren't percieved as selfish for puttin their interests ahead of other people so long as they don't break a mutually beneficial sitiuation while doing so.

.

Well as you can see from my last post, I disagree with you. You said that breaking the 'contract' of not pushing people over in the street or punching them in the face is selfish. I said that I don't see that as selfish. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would describe that as selfish. If you came home and told your housemate "Some guy punched me in the face today for no reason," what are the chances that your housemate would say "Wow that was pretty selfish of him." I'd say nil.

It sounds to me like you have just redefined selfishness as the violation of social norms or rules.

If you redefine a word, then yes your new definition of it does define it better than the old definition!!

scanlas

Kooli wrote: »

Well as you can see from my last post, I disagree with you. You said that breaking the 'contract' of not pushing people over in the street or punching them in the face is selfish. I said that I don't see that as selfish. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would describe that as selfish. If you came home and told your housemate "Some guy punched me in the face today for no reason," what are the chances that your housemate would say "Wow that was pretty selfish of him." I'd say nil.

It sounds to me like you have just redefined selfishness as the violation of social norms or rules.

If you redefine a word, then yes your new definition of it does define it better than the old definition!!

It still holds, my examples were simply crap.

If you are perceived as selfish you broke a mutually benficial contract, if you broke a mutually beneficial contract it does not automatically imply you were selfish, you could have been rude, evil, bad etc...

You won't be perceived as selfish if you don't break a contract. You can put your needs ahead others as much as you want but unless you break a contract you won't be selfish.

scanlas

I've been reading the book "Herd" and it pretty much confirms in my mind the ideas I have been describing here. What I am describing is essentially "game theory". We are nice and cooperative with each other because generally speaking it is a strong strategy to to play as shown by many game theory experiments.

The thing I find interesting is that people generally think they are being nice and cooperative because they are being " a good person". It's not driven by morals, its driven by the benefit. Many animals have similar cooperative behaviours as well. But playing the cooperative strategy all the time is not the best strategy overall. On a tangent thats part of the reason the so called "bad boy" is attractive. He sees past the delusion of "being a good person" and isn't limited in his decisions by maintaining that self image. So when once off opportunities arise where the "bad boy" would benefit by defecting he takes advantage and comes out on top. Essentially he benefits not being deluded by the false "good person image" and the successful women were the ones who became attracted to the bad boy's indicative behavours. The bad boy has a better grip on reality (as a result more effective operating in it) than the guy who is held back by his false "goodness" and deluded sense of reality. We're all selfish but the bad boy is essentially better at being selfish than others.