An argument can be made that all actions people take are for their own self-interest. Even things like helping the community is done for reciprocal benefits for yourself plus the general increase in respect.
Another point is that if all people just act for their own self-interest, they will have a better life themselves, and if everyone does the same, some sort of proper balance will be achieved.
I have been having some occasional discussions with my friends over this. I personally disagree, but would love to hear what others have to say. Feel free to discuss!
I got handed an Ayn Rand sandwich,
Straight from a can, it tasted so bland,
I asked the lass to pass me a glass,
of Engels’ Conditons of the Working Class…I think that as long as people’s individualism does not override the freedoms of others, then the pursuit of self-interest frees the mind to explore all kinds of avenues of spiritual discovery.
That’s a big ask though, and most people have different ideas of what is fair when expressing their individuality, so I do think that there needs to be a mediator of sorts to balance the more extreme aspects of our self-interest, and make sure that no one is fully happy but that we’re all kinda happy, in order for us all to progress, even if it’s at a snail’s pace.
Define self interest.
It is in your best interest to invest heavily in childhood education and recruit young people in to the agricultural sector. That is also in society’s best interest. As it happens the only people doing that are those who can see the problem even with short sighted goggles on.
Most people do not look beyond their short sighted goggles. Most of those goggles come with blinders on the sides.
Human civilization as a whole is maintained by people with blinders and goggles on, and we were trucking along just fine, and will continue to do so until we’re standing in ruins of our own making.
I wonder if the fact that human civilization has lasted and flourished for so long is just a stroke of luck then…
It has collapsed before. It will collapse again.
The contextual and memetic aspect of what constitutes a “person’s self interest” far outweights the person’s actual decision and the individual actor cannot be removed cleanly from the wider discussion envelopping what this “self-interest” even is.
The “law” and its detterence logic shapes what “self-interest” is. Talkibg heads shape your understanding of reality and anchor what your self-interest is and means.
Nobody has self-interests in a vacuum.
Of course, but their self-interest need not be shortsighted and materialistic. A man who willingly walks into certain death to save those he loves/to stand for righteousness is 100% doing it out of selfishness, as it is in our own interests to live with self-respect, self-esteem and few/no regrets.
Is acting only according to your self-interest a good strategy in life?
Not if you plan on living in a society.
An argument can be made that all actions people take are for their own self-interest. Even things like helping the community is done for reciprocal benefits for yourself plus the general increase in respect.
I believe if the act benefits someone else more than it benefits yourself, then that is what differentiates selfless from selfish.
I think it’s a bit fatuous to argue that altruism is just self-interest. Sure, people who volunteer or help others in distress usually get some kind of benefit. They feel good about themselves, or they get to live in world that is one trillionth of a percent kinder/happier because of their good deed, etc. But the self-interest argument falls apart when you look at it from a cost/benefit standpoint. Suppose a person spends 2h raising money for the food bank. The hungry people who gets to eat and feed their children benefit the most. The local community benefits a tiny bit, and maybe the volunteer gets a small self-esteem (and other-esteem) boost. On the other hand, if that person were to spend the time earning money for a nice sweater, say, they might get a bigger self esteem boost, a few compliments, and a warm fuzzy garment that lasts for years. The hungry person is still hungry, but remains an abstraction. I would argue that the sweater earner benefitted more than the volunteer. Yet, people still volunteer.
Some people make anonymous donations. Do you really think the self-esteem boost is more valuable than the literal money that person donates?
The argument that the world would be better off if everyone acted in their self interest is ridiculous. That inevitably leads to a might-makes-right system of oppression. The only reason this argument is still being circulated is because shitheads like elon musk, who already has a huge amount of wealth and influence, spam this shit everywhere (on Twitter, Fox News, etc.) to legitimize their undeserved status and evil power.
But the self-interest argument falls apart when you look at it from a cost/benefit standpoint.
I agree, and this is a much better way to define “self interest” too.
The fact that 70 million Americans voted for a christofascist dictatorship suggests not.
Another point is that if all people just act for their own self-interest, they will have a better life themselves, and if everyone does the same, some sort of proper balance will be achieved.
Hmmm, I don’t know… I think that kind of “balance” you talk about is obtained rather at that middle point between the individual and the collective interest.
I think we all act to a greater or lesser extent according to our interests, the problem I see is that we have this idea that life is a zero-sum game, where others must fail for one to succeed, that’s where the conflict comes from, because not everyone can win, there are more losers than winners. A cure for this mentality, I believe, is precisely to think about the collective interest understanding it as “what benefits my community also benefits me”, it is to achieve individual benefit through collective work and cooperation, if everyone wins I also win.
