During a course in Bible College, I made the argument that every human action has its origins in selfishness. If we sacrifice for our children, it is because we want to be loved by our children and to be thought of as good parents, both by others and by ourselves. Otherwise, we might sacrifice because we would feel bad about ourselves if we didn't, so we do so in order to avoid feeling bad about ourselves. Pretty much no one agreed with me, but I made a good argument and got an A for it. Largely, I think the disagreement was due to a misunderstanding of the concept, ignoring the fact that some people expect to be loved by their children regardless and that, while some people would feel bad about not doing something for another, others wouldn't feel bad about that at all. Selfishness isn't a bad thing if our motivations are right.
That's a hard one to dissect. I'm thinking some of it might be instinctual like a mother's protection of her baby. Getting between a mother bear and her cubs would be a good example. The selfish thing for the mother bear would be to run for her own safety, so while there might be a selfish component sometimes for a human who can reason but not a bear, there is an instinctual one too and it probably has to do with survival of the species.
Nobody ever does anything for truly altruistic reasons. We get some kind of reward. If we do good deeds, the reward is the good feeling we get for having done them. I learned that from Dr. Phil or more exactly, one of his books.
I think we should help those who are in need through no fault of their own. Or the disabled, orphans and widows. Far as a healthy person who makes choices that cause their dependance on others may need to learn how to be more independent. I see the foolishness of America has caused its downfall. Our giving to the so-called poor has created an epidemic of crime. Idle minds are the devils workshop. Most of these criminals were created by welfare. Ghettos are just another form of feed lots. Few survive this " charity". The only ones who gain are the leaders and some preachers.
I fully understand the premise and it does provoke some thought. It’s philosophically and psychologically sound reasoning. Many motivations for doing good things can be out of selfishness whether made as a conscious decision or subconscious. Parents who give that car up for a sweet 16 gift are doing so out of love but they expect love in return. We also have the parents who do without so their kids will have enough to eat which has it’s subconscious rewards in that doing the right thing brings about a chemical reaction involving serotonin. In truth, I can think of nothing that a person does that isn’t rewarded or looking for a reward……..Except….. But what of the man who gives his life for another? Whether a person is of faith or not, giving one’s life is perhaps a primal reaction or even combined with the love for another but the end result is that there is no earthly reward in doing so. Maybe that is why the Master placed such a high regard to the act. “For greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his brother”. (John 15:13)
And indeed, that's what they usually do, despite the often-quoted mantra about getting between a mother bear and her cubs. Of course, it feels good to love and to be loved, and even when the love is not returned, parents still want to know that they gave their love. That's a large part of being human, and that makes us feel good about ourselves. Of course, I understand there are situations in which this premise might be weaker than in others, but the goal in the assignment, like many others, was to adopt a position and defend it. At other times, we were assigned the position and given the assignment of defending it even if it was in direct opposition to our actual position. It's a useful exercise, not only in rhetoric but in being able to understand and appreciate other perspectives. This is one that I got to choose, however, because it was stronger than most.
"Selfish" is a funny word. It does not mean "stingy." Anytime you say "Yes" to someone it may be because you do not want them to be mad at you, or it may be in the context of the give & take implicit in all relationships. That is one kind of selfishness that might not appear to be as such on the surface...an informal quid-pro-quo. Anytime you say "No" to someone it may be because you do not want to be mad at yourself...there are degrees of being used that a healthy adult does not tolerate. That is a healthy kind of selfish. I've had people who have been enraged and called me selfish when I say "No," completely oblivious to their own unhealthy selfish behaviour as they expect others to take care of them...and they are earnest in calling others selfish. Conversely, some folks may allow themselves to be used and they tolerate their anger at themselves and carry resentment as they refuse to draw boundaries, yet on the outside they appear to be "unselfish." Many of us have learned this life lesson of "Learning how to say no" as Healthy Selfish pushes back against Selfish Selfish. It's interesting that selfishness is often the motive but may not even be acknowledged, even when it takes its most overt pernicious form. Or selfishness may be in sheep's clothing ("I'm from the government and I'm here to help.") The example of parents is a complicated one. Parents can be strict/firm with their children because of the adults they want their children to become. So a parent will tolerate "I hate you!" in the moment (or even over a period of time), knowing there's a long-term benefit to the child. Meeting your duty to another human being solely because it is your duty in spite of it making you uncomfortable or sad is pure unselfishness (and pure love), in my opinion. Even if that conflict contains a component of "When the child is an adult I want them to reflect well on me," it is some far-away concept that is negligible in that moment. Conversely, I think leniency is pure selfishness (and maybe laziness), because it is 100% about "you" to the detriment of others. It is an interesting topic to discuss in the religious realm, both in the context of the example of Jesus and in the context of how we are commanded to be. Having a solid faith in eternal life certainly diminishes Earthly motives, as one does "the right thing" solely because it is such, and any immediate reward is meaningless. And then there's Darwin...
Doing for others can give you a feeling of power. I have so I can give to others that don't have what I have. And being good to your kids makes a kind of agreement, we hope, that they will be good to us, like when we are old. (personally, I told my kids to throw me on the mulch pile) But, I have held the door for others with no apparent reward, just to be nice. It is the glue that holds us together, niceness, helping... I guess it could be that if we are active members of society, society will take care of us?
Ironic ! Maybe synchronicity? I was going to put up today how a certain kids of mine think I was too strict but are now realizing how hard ans 'unpopular' being strict really is. I always told my kids " I' not raising you to love me but for you to love yourself enough to survive the world". I won't go on how your post is so much my own philosophy. Hope I'm making sense I tired, of course at times I don't make sense when rested.
I have thought that "Original Sin" was selfishness, and laying one's life down for another is the defeat of that, whether it be your spouse, your child, or your friend.
A truly selfless person paves a quick path to death. We must be selfish enough to love ourselves before we can love others. Being selfish is like so many things, some is required to survive and do good, but too much can lead to misery and destruction.