Humans are Selfish

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 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.

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.