Humans are Selfish

Hello all. This is a topic I've wanted to talk about with more people in my life but I am sort of afraid that we may come to the conclusion that I am correct, or that I am the only asshole that thinks like this. Also Its sort of awkward having a conversation with a friend about how you may not care about them.

My hypothesis is that humans are entirely selfish, caring about nobody else at all. The only reason we care for anybodies well being, is because it effects us. The only reason we have friends is because they benefit us. When we feel sad for someone elses sake, it is not out of empathy, it is because the idea makes us sad.

Examples:
- Someone close to you dies. You aren't sad because you feel bad for them, or have any empathy at all. You are sad because they left YOU.

- You have a best friend. You don't care for him at all, only the idea that if he left you, you would no longer benefit from his existence.

- The news shows a story about a dog dying. You aren't sad FOR the dog, you are sad because the idea upsets YOU.

I haven't brought this up for any reason pertaining to me, its just been something that has been on mind for a while. I realize that there are holes in this theory, and maybe the way I've written something doesn't make sense, or sounds redundant. I would like you all to help me develop this, by disproving me or agreeing with me.

It's selfish to keep such a tantalizing topic locked away to suffocate in the Staff Room.

THATS WHY NOBODY IS REPLYING MY GOSH! WOOPSIEDAISIES

hmmm i can see your point on some of the examples. However, what of love? True love by definition is the desire to see and make another happy.

Yeah, but you benefit from loving someone. It's still about you in this sense.

Divorce or break ups could easily be defined as the cost of having that person as a lover then outweighing the benefits.

DeadApe wrote:Examples:
- Someone close to you dies. You aren't sad because you feel bad for them, or have any empathy at all. You are sad because they left YOU.

Ehh. Not sure how to put it into words.

I'd be sad because they died and because they left me. The two kind of go hand in hand.

A bigger concern to me would be more... "solid" selfishness. For example, there are people starving in the world, and money could save them. Donald Trump says "Fuck them, I want a gaudy golden toilet.". Mark Zuckerburg says "Fuck them, I want the title of 'Youngest Billionaire'.". He couldn't possibly spend all that money, ever. He has it just for the sake of the title, and that's it. He could give 900 million, still have more than one should sanely have, and save thousands. But no, he's willing to let them all die for a fucking TITLE. So many selfish people just love money for the sake of having it. They don't care how many other people go hungry, they just want that number.

That's the only selfishness that concerns me. If, as you say, humans are all inherently selfish, and everything we care about relates to how it affects us, than it doesn't even matter. It takes all the meaning out of "selfish" if it applies to everyone.

I feel it's unfair to put all humans into one group or another. Yes, there is certainly a large number of people that reflect this view, but surely not all of humanity does.

Or maybe this is true, and I'm just an optimist :S

Selflessness is a virtue rarely seen by today's populace, but it doesn't mean it went out the fucking window. People care about eachother for reasons other than themselves. Family, is a good example. Not all families are perfect, but when it comes down to the ones who care about eachother, they don't do it for personal gain, they do it for eachother.

And there is a difference to what seems to be true and what is actually true. Personal gain is, by any intelligent individual, the first thought that comes to mind when questioning someone's motive. What's in it for you? they ask. Sometimes, legitimatly, nothing. Without trying, you can come across a reward to doing something even though you weren't attempting to get anything out of a deal.

Human nature, by all definitions, is too fucking complex to narrow down to one absolute law, and is contradictory in many points. To say that Humanity is an absolute prick to itself is too narrow minded. What it comes down to in the end, is a simple gut feeling. If you feel someone is in the forward attempt to screw you out of something, you know their motive. If you feel that someone is genuinely trying to help you for good reasons, then leave it at that. They're doing something for you. Why complain?

On that note, even if someone was trying to get something out of a deal, as long as they put these set terms at the start, what is the real problem? That's simple commerce.

The day humanity can be narrowed down to a few aspects is the day we stop being human. Because human nature is an unsolvable variable, and defines ourselves as a race.

Meatshield718 wrote:Yeah, but you benefit from loving someone. It's still about you in this sense.

Divorce or break ups could easily be defined as the cost of having that person as a lover then outweighing the benefits.

yes and no. there are many people who stay with their significant other out of undying love (even in some abusive relationships).

And agreed with hybird. Life is literally a giant game of perspective based on what one observes. And deadape, if thats truly what you belive then don't be afraid to say it. It shows insecurity about one's beliefs if they need assurance from a thrid party (not bashing you of course. This is quite an interesting topic)

Westhybrid 360 wrote:Selflessness is a virtue rarely seen by today's populace, but it doesn't mean it went out the fucking window. People care about eachother for reasons other than themselves. Family, is a good example. Not all families are perfect, but when it comes down to the ones who care about eachother, they don't do it for personal gain, they do it for eachother.

And there is a difference to what seems to be true and what is actually true. Personal gain is, by any intelligent individual, the first thought that comes to mind when questioning someone's motive. What's in it for you? they ask. Sometimes, legitimatly, nothing. Without trying, you can come across a reward to doing something even though you weren't attempting to get anything out of a deal.

Human nature, by all definitions, is too fucking complex to narrow down to one absolute law, and is contradictory in many points. To say that Humanity is an absolute prick to itself is too narrow minded. What it comes down to in the end, is a simple gut feeling. If you feel someone is in the forward attempt to screw you out of something, you know their motive. If you feel that someone is genuinely trying to help you for good reasons, then leave it at that. They're doing something for you. Why complain?

On that note, even if someone was trying to get something out of a deal, as long as they put these set terms at the start, what is the real problem? That's simple commerce.

The day humanity can be narrowed down to a few aspects is the day we stop being human. Because human nature is an unsolvable variable, and defines ourselves as a race.

+1

Thanks for writing that, for, me?

Well, just to put this out here, I can't say through DeadApe's examples, that I have "cared" for anyone, or anything for that matter.As those people and things may be only "shares" in my selfish market, and I supposedly don't have any real attachment to the person or thing but only for my own existence.

But even through those examples as dark as they seem, they appear to be completely true in most cases , as I could "care" for a lamp, as it gives me light, but when that lamp fizzes out, I no longer have any sentimental feeling or care towards the lamp, as it is no more use to ME.

Nevertheless, there are people I would take a wound for, even die for in this life, as I care for their being, and I wish, even through my demise that they can keep living.But could they care for that act? Be grateful?

I don't know if I'm writing in circles anymore, but in my perspective, we are selfish, I mean, who want's to donate their money on someone who is less fortunate, whilst you could easily buy a new thing, that could keep YOU happy, and keep YOU satisfied.

But, still through my own perspective, there are slivers of care inside every one of us, (I hope) everyone has had a moment, where they have went out of their own way, to increase someone else's well being or happiness, or provided the necessary actions to prevent harm to another human, or thing, because YOU CARE for them.

It seems I've corrected myself trying to prove my point, so I'm going to narrow it down to that we're more selfish than caring, it's in our blood, our DNA, we're wired to keep ourselves alive, but, it's the one human component, that may or may not have brought us here today, it's the care for one another and the motive to improve someones well being throughout your own actions, and once we've lost that, I say we've long lost our humanity.

I could write forever, but i'm going to stop because I don't want to write for you for my own health and well being (heh).

And as Hybrid has stated, selfishness and human nature is way too damn complex to discuss.

Seems to be a real pessimistic way to look at things...

I think it should be noted that even animals are capable of "Love" (or at least something very like it). I had a pair of pet rats once (Pet rats are always bought in pairs, as they get lonely without a friend). When one of them died, the other stopped eating, to the point that it let itself die. It went against all of it's survival instincts to stop eating. The only benefit it gained from it's partner was companionship, so they didn't need each other to survive. When it's partner died, it decided to die as well. Same thing with dogs. There are plenty of stories out there of dogs helping and saving people, even people who aren't it's owner (i.e. it wouldn't benefit from helping that person).

I, like almost everybody else in this topic, am confusing myself. I don't know. It's a complicated subject. There are plenty of people out there who love one another, but why do they love one another? Do they just love the other person solely because THEY feel good when the other person is around, or do they just plain love them? Love the way they are as a person - but wait, they could do that because the way they are as a person makes them more enjoyable to be around, meaning they love them for being so lovable, but they do so because it makes THEM happy. If you think of it that way, then it's impossible to come to any conclusion but "People only do things for themselves". No matter what, something can always be traced back to you. If I hold a door open for someone, I'm doing it because it makes ME feel good when I'm nice to people. If I try to help a lost dog find it's family, even if there isn't a reward, it makes ME feel good inside because I know how nice I'm being. See what I mean? When you think of it that way, there's no way to do anything selfless, because no matter what you do, there's a reward for it.

A hypothetical situation: Let's say something horrible has happened, and everyone is determined to find out who's responsible. Let's say someone you love (because their presence is enjoyable to you, of course. Because you're selfish.) has done it, and you don't want them to pay for it. So you pin it on yourself, you take the blame. You know that, not only are you going to be killed for doing this - long after you're dead, people will still hate you. You'll be reviled in history books for the rest of human existence. There are so many horrible cons, but you still decide to take the blame to save your loved one, even knowing you won't live to spend time with them. Your only solace is knowing that your loved one will be safe, and might have a chance at being happy.

Even something as selfless as that could be twisted. Maybe you're just doing it because you know life will be miserable to go through without that person. If you've decided to do this, it's not because you're selfless, it's because it best suits YOU to die, to not have to live with that awful misery, and to die feeling noble, knowing what a selfless thing you've done, and knowing that person, who you'd be so miserable without, who you love (only because it makes YOU feel good to love them, of course), will be safe.

It just doesn't seem to be a very fair perspective to have. No matter how you look at it, there's always a benefit somewhere, maybe hidden and obscure, but it still exists. Here's the definition of "selfless": "having little or no concern for oneself, especially with regard to fame, position, money, etc.". Under this perspective, it's literally impossible. Everything you do relates to you and how you feel about it, and there will always be a positive consequence. So you can't say anything is selfless, since there's always something to gain from doing it, and even if the cons heavily outweigh the pros, there are still pros.

Here's yet another example. I wasn't going to buy Modern Warfare 3 anytime soon, because it didn't interest me that much, but I know my brother wants it. I could just not buy it, and then he'd spend his money on it, and I'd still get to play it, but I'm not going to do that. I'm going to buy it for him. I'm buying it for him because I know it will make him happy, and I want my brother to be happy. Ordinarily, people might just say I'm being a good brother. But under this perspective, I'm not being selfless, as being selfless is doing something without any regard for benefit. Under this perspective, I'm buying it because it's going to make ME feel good knowing my brother is happy.

That just doesn't feel fair.

Y U POST TXT WALL?!?!

Some very good responses. I am glad that people agree with me in some ways. To counter some responses.

Love is a very important part of this argument and I am glad that some of you brought it up. It especially helps if you have ever been in love. I believe that when you love somebody, you have found somebody that makes you extremely happy. You would rather be with them than anyone else, or be doing anything else. But at the same time you love them because they make YOU happy. They are comforting and safe. Without them you would be miserable. You say you "care about them" but do you really? I think you just care about them because of the benefits you get from being in the relationship. The most important one, is not being lonely. I know of some couples who will stay together just so that they don't have to be alone, even if they don't belong together.


As someone here put it, I think Apoc, this way of thinking is wired into our DNA. Its all about survival. If society reverted back to chaos without any of our institutions or laws, it would be every man for himself. In todays age, this is under layers of "morals" and thoughts of "doing the right thing," but in the end I think its all about numbero uno.

DeadApe wrote:Love is a very important part of this argument and I am glad that some of you brought it up. It especially helps if you have ever been in love. I believe that when you love somebody, you have found somebody that makes you extremely happy. You would rather be with them than anyone else, or be doing anything else. But at the same time you love them because they make YOU happy. They are comforting and safe. Without them you would be miserable. You say you "care about them" but do you really? I think you just care about them because of the benefits you get from being in the relationship. The most important one, is not being lonely. I know of some couples who will stay together just so that they don't have to be alone, even if they don't belong together.

If that's true, then why do people feel so sad long after a loved one has died? It doesn't seem quite proportional to feel sad for years and years if you only wanted that persons company, or to avoid all other company altogether. If somebody only loves their spouse because their spouse makes them happy, then what if their spouse dies? Why would they decide to never remarry (even if their spouse never said anything about remarrying?)? What's the sense in not getting another partner to keep you company if the old one's long dead? Why can you love someone who isn't there for you? How could a purely selfish being feel love for somebody that's either dead and gone or too far away to provide any sort of comfort? I wouldn't say they solely feel longing to have that person back in their life. They also just feel love for who they are as a person, despite the fact that who they are as a person isn't helping them at all.

And what about parents? Why does a parent love their child, to the point that they'd die for them, even if the kid never makes their life any happier? No matter how annoying their kid is or how much misery the kid brings to his/her parents, most parents will still love the kid. Even if you chalk it up to DNA - the fact that parents of most species recognize that their offspring is carrying their DNA, and that they need to keep it safe and healthy to ensure the survival of our species, then why do humans feel sad for their children even if their life is in no danger? Let's say that somebody's child is going to juvenile hall. Does the parent feel sad solely out of concern for that child's well being (out of concern for the dangers in the facility, or worrying about their child's future?)? That might be a small part of it, but it's not all of it. They feel sad just knowing that their loved one is unhappy. How can you construe that as selfish? They feel sad purely because their loved one feels sad - no benefit in it for them or their family - just pure empathy and compassion.

DeadApe wrote:As someone here put it, I think Apoc, this way of thinking is wired into our DNA. Its all about survival. If society reverted back to chaos without any of our institutions or laws, it would be every man for himself.

History is the greatest of all teachers, and history doesn't agree with this point of view. Survival is hard-wired into our DNA, but so is the love of our family, even the ones who DON'T carry our DNA (i.e. spouses). Let's say society was "reverted back to chaos without any of our institutions or laws". What happens then? As you said, we've reverted, and what happened when this was actually going on? Thinking back on it, there would presumably be a family unit of cavemen or something. Then, they eventually grouped up with other family units (and not just for breeding, as I believe a common way to find a non-related mate was to just go grab her and absorb her into your family unit). They continued grouping, until most of the Earth was divided amongst thousands and thousands of small groups and tribes. Eventually, they all had their own languages, and some of them became large civilizations. Occasionally they'd fight each-other for land and resources, one group would absorb another, yada yada, human history ensues, and we end up here, modern day. Whether it was every man for himself or not, we ended up here, and even if we reverted back, we'd come back around to this eventually.

And aside from that, are you saying if you were some caveman in a land with no laws and institutions, and you saw somebody in need of help, you WOULDN'T help them? I know I would. Even if I don't know them and get nothing from helping them, I wouldn't just leave them to die, I'd help them, and plenty of other people would as well.

DeadApe wrote:Some very good responses. I am glad that people agree with me in some ways. To counter some responses.

Love is a very important part of this argument and I am glad that some of you brought it up. It especially helps if you have ever been in love. I believe that when you love somebody, you have found somebody that makes you extremely happy. You would rather be with them than anyone else, or be doing anything else. But at the same time you love them because they make YOU happy. They are comforting and safe. Without them you would be miserable. You say you "care about them" but do you really? I think you just care about them because of the benefits you get from being in the relationship. The most important one, is not being lonely. I know of some couples who will stay together just so that they don't have to be alone, even if they don't belong together.


As someone here put it, I think Apoc, this way of thinking is wired into our DNA. Its all about survival. If society reverted back to chaos without any of our institutions or laws, it would be every man for himself. In todays age, this is under layers of "morals" and thoughts of "doing the right thing," but in the end I think its all about numbero uno.

oh hell yeah ape. Its easy to talk ab love in till you have your first heartbreak

Women are stupid

mboddz751 wrote:
oh hell yeah ape. Its easy to talk ab love in till you have your first heartbreak

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that I have never been heartbroke? If you are than that is entirely untrue.

@ Desert
I think you made a really good point when you said that my theory doesn't make sense for people who love someone who doesn't love them back (or for that matter, someone who abuses them.) I am not really sure how to counter this.

As for everything else you said, I believe you were trying to dissprove what I said about survival being wired into our DNA, however all your arguments tended to back up what I said. The whole "family unit" and your progression of society only explains that humans will group and work together for survival. A mother knowing that her DNA is in her child and that she needs to provide safety for it is a prime example. The mother is doing it for the survival of her lineage, so her species can live on. Unconditional love shows that the need to "survive" comes before the love of a human being for any other reason.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In political science today, my teacher was talking about Realism vs Liberalism. One key aspect of Realism is that international politics is purely competition/survival. Countries only cooperate for benefit (even if mutual.) On the other side Liberals believe that it is not this pessimistic, and that countries will work together regardless of benefits. You don't have to respond to this, I just found it interesting and related to our discussion if you think of nations as people.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Seems to be a real pessimistic way to look at things...

I have other ways of inputting my perspective to the discussion, but I guess I become a little darker at 11pm, unless you were directing that towards someone else.

DeadApe wrote:@ Desert
I think you made a really good point when you said that my theory doesn't make sense for people who love someone who doesn't love them back (or for that matter, someone who abuses them.) I am not really sure how to counter this.

As for everything else you said, I believe you were trying to disprove what I said about survival being wired into our DNA, however all your arguments tended to back up what I said. The whole "family unit" and your progression of society only explains that humans will group and work together for survival. A mother knowing that her DNA is in her child and that she needs to provide safety for it is a prime example. The mother is doing it for the survival of her lineage, so her species can live on. Unconditional love shows that the need to "survive" comes before the love of a human being for any other reason.

No, I wasn't trying to disprove that survival was wired into our DNA. I agree with that part. I can't remember word for word what I said, so I'll just do my best to remember here. I was saying that people don't solely love their children because it's hardwired into their DNA (though it is), and it was an example of how you could love somebody for unselfish reasons. It was intended to be an example of unselfishness, as proof that humans aren't entirely selfish beings.

ApocalypseVVolf. wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Seems to be a real pessimistic way to look at things...

I have other ways of inputting my perspective to the discussion, but I guess I become a little darker at 11pm, unless you were directing that towards someone else.

I'm talking about the entire topic. I don't even understand the goal behind the topic. To understand the true nature of human beings? To further what? A higher form of thinking? To be ten steps ahead of any given situation involving the human element?

It's really pessimistic and pointless, and my advice to all of you is to have nothing to do with it.

Excuse me? I posted the topic because its something that I wanted to discuss with other people. Better than half the garbage that gets posted, I'm sorry its not about paramilitary.

well since my dad and bro died i feel bad for myself...i don't understand that...i mean no offense deadape but it feels like bullshit

Well you don't have to jump all over me about it...


DeadOpie, I respect you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It's an interesting topic for some people, but I think anybody can agree that you can relate absolutely anything that a person does to some sort of personal gain even in the slightest. Doesn't mean you should call everybody selfish. It also just really does seem like a pessimistic way of looking at things.

I guess you'll call me selfish for this, but I love my girlfriend, and she loves me back. Right now if she were to die in a car crash or be killed in a hijacking or something rather, I'd be distraught with sadness, anger, grief, etc. (And I'd expect the same from her if it were to happen to me)

I'd be depressed because she had left me, but I'd be far more depressed at the fact that she had died so young and that I couldn't have done anything to avert it. That's what defines someone as selfish, when what benefits you outweighs the benefit to somebody else. I think it's really inappropriate to call humans selfish as a whole simply because they may benefit from something.

People have enough things to be depressed about, don't you think?

@ Jag

The entire point of the topic is it is a discussion. I don't completely believe what I said. I proposed a theory and am looking for people to help me flesh it out. If you get too "depressed" by a discussion that has gravity to it, then stay away from the topic. Or you can be mature and contribute.

Edit: I don't know if you edited your post or not, but I just saw now that you actually gave me a legit response. So thanks.

@Wolf

Like I said, I'm presenting a theory. I would ask you to elaborate on why what I said "feels like bullshit," but that's probably going too far.