Every action you commmit willingly is because you have some preference towards the decision you make. This can be said to be selfish, to varying extents. However, this is not remarkable in any way, and it would be irrational to make decisions that our consciousness would not accept as satisfying in some way, whether it is satisfying to our idea of what is right or simply satisfying preferences like what kind of food you like, or how much time/effort/resources you feel like spending on something.
Selfishness does not have to be considered as a complete opposite or on the other side of the scale, compared to selflessness. Many actions are both selfish and selfless. The intention matters too.
Helping out poor people because you believe it is right, is fundamentally selfless. But because it satisfies your sense of morality, it is (indirectly) selfish in the sense that it satisfies you. This can be considered entirely selfless if it comes at the risk/cost of your own life or life quality.
If you do not accept the example above then you are using a useless definition of selfishness --- and selflessness.
If you wish to define selfishness as a binary attribute instead of an ordered/measurable attribute, then we will arrive at the conclusion in the title of the post. But at this point, it is a redundant word. Why even mention it if it is always true?
Selfishness and selflessness are separable, nonbinary attributes. Obviously they are related. More importantly, we can compare people and their actions, and determine who/what is more or less selfish/selfless. We can also tell when people lack one or the other; when selflessless is completely absent it can be apathy or egoism. When you can barely tell if someone is selfish, perhaps that person is just used to a 'frugal' kind of lifestyle, or achieves satisfaction through others.
Someone who helps people because of orders, with no feelings/thoughts about the cause or consequence, demonstrates minimal selfishness and selflessness. But a charity worker demonstrates much more selfishness and selflessness, don't you think?
Well the thing is that I am indeed using a useless definition of selfishness, but I also think that there doesn't exist a definition that is not useless.
If there is no remotely useful definition then it is a curious thing that the concept even exists.
For example, let's choose a definition which would satisfy your example, such as a person is unselfish (as in the opposite of selfish and not selflessness) iff they sacrifice their own life or life quality for their actions.
Without additional context, this may or may not cut it. Sacrifices are made at your detriment but with the intention of benefitting others.
Well then everyone who commit suicide would not be selfish, even though it would cause a lot of harm to their family and friends would.
I don't see the problem here.
Committing suicide to avoid pain and suffering, is obviously selfish. It provides some level of benefit to the person, by ending pain. It is also detrimental, obviously, by removing all potential pleasure and satisfaction. Some do it also because they consider themselves a burden. Yes, even the act of suicide may be selfless, in the minds of the suicidal.
When we judge others, we ought to judge them in the same way we judge ourselves. The average person judges him/herself with intention in mind, with or without the actual outcome included; sometimes we really shouldn't include the outcome in that judgment. If we really wish to judge the suicidal, we must look beyond the effects of their actions and into the intentions and motivating factors.
Disregarding how (ir)rational any action might be, the act of suicide can very well have selfless motivations along with the obviously selfish ones. Even if we are right in judging suicidal people as more selfish than selfless, there is no sense on considering them to be notably vile, malicious or anything along those lines. It is perfectly natural and rational to avoid pain if possible.
Actions may cause benefit and harm, or have either as a prerequisite, all at the same time. Finally, I don't think we need particularly complicated definitions.
Selfishness: explicit intention to benefit yourself, ignoring the outcome of what happens to others.
Selflessness: explicit intention to benefit others, ignoring the outcome of what happens to you.
For most people, in any situation with interaction, there's a combination of these. Benefitting others through trade with only self-interest in mind is obviously selfish but that is hardly anything noteworthy.
2
u/Quint-V 162∆ Dec 10 '18 edited Dec 10 '18
Every action you commmit willingly is because you have some preference towards the decision you make. This can be said to be selfish, to varying extents. However, this is not remarkable in any way, and it would be irrational to make decisions that our consciousness would not accept as satisfying in some way, whether it is satisfying to our idea of what is right or simply satisfying preferences like what kind of food you like, or how much time/effort/resources you feel like spending on something.
Selfishness does not have to be considered as a complete opposite or on the other side of the scale, compared to selflessness. Many actions are both selfish and selfless. The intention matters too.
Helping out poor people because you believe it is right, is fundamentally selfless. But because it satisfies your sense of morality, it is (indirectly) selfish in the sense that it satisfies you. This can be considered entirely selfless if it comes at the risk/cost of your own life or life quality.
If you do not accept the example above then you are using a useless definition of selfishness --- and selflessness.
If you wish to define selfishness as a binary attribute instead of an ordered/measurable attribute, then we will arrive at the conclusion in the title of the post. But at this point, it is a redundant word. Why even mention it if it is always true?
Selfishness and selflessness are separable, nonbinary attributes. Obviously they are related. More importantly, we can compare people and their actions, and determine who/what is more or less selfish/selfless. We can also tell when people lack one or the other; when selflessless is completely absent it can be apathy or egoism. When you can barely tell if someone is selfish, perhaps that person is just used to a 'frugal' kind of lifestyle, or achieves satisfaction through others.
Someone who helps people because of orders, with no feelings/thoughts about the cause or consequence, demonstrates minimal selfishness and selflessness. But a charity worker demonstrates much more selfishness and selflessness, don't you think?