Re-Evaluating "Selfishness"

[William James]

I believe we are all selfish human beings in the strict sense of the word. Even those of us thought to be "selfless" are actually acting in at least what we perceive to be our own self interest, one way or another. Charity, for example, can have a variety of motivations, all of which are selfish, such as: (a) it makes us feel good; (b) we are doing it to get recognition from the person we are helping; © we are doing it to get recognition from others; (d) we are doing it to get recognition for something we believe in and want furthered (i.e., a principle, an organization, etc.); (e) we are doing it because we fear punishment from God; (f) we are doing it because we expect some reward in heaven, etc.

I was listening to a great podcast on Mormon Matters yesterday, and it made me think about this topic again. Here's where I am at right now on this issue: We cannot rid ourselves of selfishness, no matter how hard we try to be charitable. But the virtue in our works depends not on whether some selfishness is involved; rather, it depends in large part upon our ability to cause ourselves, through developing empathy, to genuinely want to do what is best all-around, taking into account everyone's needs (including our own). In other words, we align our self-interest with making the world a better place.

Accomplishing this is of course not easy. Although we can easily succombe to losing sight of the needs of others, it also seems common for people to lose sight of their own needs in their quest to please and conform. I think we need to take a wholistic approach, trying to develop empathy for others, while not losing our own sense of self-worth or our God-given to seek happiness ourselves.

Thoughts?

[cdowis]

I think the core of selfishness is a sense of entitlement -- "I deserve...."

[wenglund]

Is the suggestion being made that, in terms of selfishness, there is no difference between Christ and Paris Hilton?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DarkScythe]

Motivation is the difference in why.

[mbh26]

I think the core of selfishness is a sense of entitlement -- "I deserve...."

Do you deserve to get a paycheck if you put your forty hours in this week?

I think we need to take a wholistic approach, trying to develop empathy for others, while not losing our own sense of self-worth or our God-given to seek happiness ourselves.

That's kind of what everyone does, but good luck trying to get them to admit it.

Example

Two boys are at the table. There is only one cookie. The total common good available is 1 cookie. Who ends up getting the cookie does not change the overall common good. Should the boy who has the cookie feel guilty for not giving away his cookie. He needs it just as bad as the other boy. Or should he find some reason to state that he has a right to the cookie? I don't know. I never figured out the moral answer to this one.

Edited September 12, 2011 by mbh26

[William James]

Do you deserve to get a paycheck if you put your forty hours in this week?

That's kind of what everyone does, but good luck trying to get them to admit it.

Example

Two boys are at the table. There is only one cookie. The total common good available is 1 cookie. Who ends up getting the cookie does not change the overall common good. Should the boy who has the cookie feel guilty for not giving away his cookie. He needs it just as bad as the other boy. Or should he find some reason to state that he has a right to the cookie? I don't know. I never figured out the moral answer to this one.

Good hypothetical. As luck would have it, almost this very thing happened to me when I was a boy. There was one cookie left. I was about to eat it when a sibling of mine pointed out that it would be wrong of me to eat the last cookie. As soon as I relented, feeling somewhat guilty, he took it and before my eyes ate it with a sort of "you're so gullible" smile on his face. Assuming there is no way to share the cookie, and all other things being equal, then I suppose the right answer would be to let the other person have it, so long as you can do so without imperiling yourself. I recall a film I saw a few years ago set in a concentration camp during WWII. Starving jews were fighting over food and even taking it away from children. In that type of desperate situation, I tend to think God is not likely to condemn us for doing things in our own self interest even when it would normally be considered immoral.

[William James]

Do you deserve to get a paycheck if you put your forty hours in this week?

That's kind of what everyone does, but good luck trying to get them to admit it.

Example

Two boys are at the table. There is only one cookie. The total common good available is 1 cookie. Who ends up getting the cookie does not change the overall common good. Should the boy who has the cookie feel guilty for not giving away his cookie. He needs it just as bad as the other boy. Or should he find some reason to state that he has a right to the cookie? I don't know. I never figured out the moral answer to this one.

Good hypothetical. As luck would have it, almost this very thing happened to me when I was a boy. There was one cookie left. I was about to eat it when a sibling of mine pointed out that it would be wrong of me to eat the last cookie. As soon as I relented, feeling somewhat guilty, he took it and before my eyes ate it with a sort of "you're so gullible" smile on his face. Assuming there is no way to share the cookie, and all other things being equal, then I suppose the right answer would be to let the other person have it, so long as you can do so without imperiling yourself. I recall a film I saw a few years ago set in a concentration camp during WWII. Starving jews were fighting over food and even taking it away from children. In that type of desperate situation, I tend to think God is not likely to condemn us for doing things in our own self interest even when it would normally be considered immoral.

[bu11fr0g]

The key to unraveling this is to realize that there is more than one self.<br>When are selfishness is "natural man" based and takes the most fundamental needs from another, it is the second worst ... when we rob to eat, rape for sex, steal for clothes, forcibly take another's home.<br>Only worse is the same done for banalities ... killing for pleasure, stealing for a thrill, robbing for fun.<br><br>At the exact opposite end is the person that sacrifices the "natural man's" desires for higher order benefit of others.<br>  The person who gives their life for the lives of their friends.<br>  and the most, the man who gives His life for the chance to elevate the spiritual life of His sworn enemies.<br><br>Our various motivations can be at complete odds with each other.<br>However, there is a difference between intentional sacrifice of one's natural wants and being walked all over (the example of the cookie above).<br><br>

[CV75]

Accomplishing this is of course not easy. Although we can easily succombe to losing sight of the needs of others, it also seems common for people to lose sight of their own needs in their quest to please and conform. I think we need to take a wholistic approach, trying to develop empathy for others, while not losing our own sense of self-worth or our God-given to seek happiness ourselves.

Thoughts?

Some identify the “self” as their union of and with their fellow beings in voluntary compliance with the Father’s will. Moses 4:2 shows that our perfect model for this sees the Father’s glory as comprised of the exaltation of His children (Moses 1:39). In this sense, the “self” is never alone and is therefore never “self-less”. This is why the only true self is comprised of "all truth" which acts for itself, otherwise there is no existence (D&C 93:30), "no existence" being a "self-less" state (and by degrees, of course).

[CV75]

RE: "Some identify the “self” as their union of and with their fellow beings in voluntary compliance with the Father’s will," see Moses 7:18, "And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them."