There is no such thing as unselfish concern
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Michael Ragland
Published: October 3, 2008
Generally speaking, human beings don’t have the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others or altruistic behavior. We haven’t developed to that point yet. There is kin selection which is forgoing
one’s life (saving your children in a fire but dying in the process) so your genes will be passed down to the next generation; hardly an altruistic behavior. For firemen and policemen, it is their job and there
are selfish incentives to save a man, woman or child. A man who saves a person in frigid waters knows he will be conferred status of hero. In a job, he or she may receive a commendation or promotion.
There are many who may disagree with me, but never in my life have I seen completely unfettered unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Not in relationships, jobs, etc. Always, there is a self interest.
A clashing of a myriad of self interests.
MICHAEL RAGLAND
Triangle
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Michael ) on October 06, 2008 at 12:43 am
Posted by ( willow703 ) on October 05, 2008 at 10:57 am
Michael,
First, you mistook me for QuestionAuthority. What is your “self-interest” in imparting to the reader what you think to be valid regarding human nature generally?
Second, how is it that you know what is in the mind of every person who endangers his/her life to save the life of another? I do not believe in clairvoyance.
Willow 703:
If you were familiar with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution you would know we are not biologically programmable to be a truly caring or altruistic species. Also, even for those who don’t understand Darwinism (survival of the fittest) life experience should tell one we are not altruistic in nature.
My self interest is my disappointment in the human species; just to let you know! And self interested gratification in seeing my letter get published in the Potomac News!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on October 05, 2008 at 9:57 am
Michael,
First, you mistook me for QuestionAuthority. What is your “self-interest” in imparting to the reader what you think to be valid regarding human nature generally?
Second, how is it that you know what is in the mind of every person who endangers his/her life to save the life of another? I do not believe in clairvoyance.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( kgotthardt ) on October 04, 2008 at 8:13 pm
And I knew you knew your letter would generate flak, so I thought I’d give some to you hee hee hee!
But here’s the thing: first, someone scowling at you doesn’t really tell you much. I’ve accidentally scowled in people’s general direction because I had something else on my mind, something that had nothing to do with them! I try not to do that, but if I’m really distracted, my face doesn’t always show what’s on the inside.
Second point: for people who genuinely believe that we are all connected, that we are one spiritual family, that there aren’t the kinds of divisions we think there are between living beings, then yes, true altruism is possible because if you are such a person, you don’t believe there is any difference between yourself and others, between yourself and the highest power. If you truly believe that, while you might not always do the right thing, when you DO choose to act altruistically, you do it from this sense of higher interconnectedness. The “self” in this case isn’t the “self” we traditionally think of. “The self” is “the all.“
It takes tremendous effort to grasp at this conviction and act accordingly, but even if we could do it once in our lifetime, imagine what a world it would be!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Michael ) on October 04, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I knew my short letter to the editor on lack of altruism would receive flak. As far as EMT’s they choose that profession and none of them do it out of purely altruistic concern. Point in case I was picked up by EMT’s (situation remains private) and months later the same two EMT’s came to my building for another person. One EMT man smiled when he saw me; the other a woman looked disgusted. A difference in how they appraised me.
As far as what my “self interest” is it is imparting to the reader what I think to be valid regarding human nature generally. Why is it important whether the human species is altruistic or not? Arguably if there was more altruism there would be more cooperation and collaboration with each other. Just my two cents. I’m no biologist.
Willow 703’s lengthy response while well written was just sophism IMHO.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( kgotthardt ) on October 04, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“There are many who may disagree with me, but never in my life have I seen completely unfettered unselfish concern for the welfare of others.“
WOW. Michael, you must live a very sad life or you must know a bunch of hypocrites.
I’m wondering if the emergency professionals to whom you refer are insulted. I know I’m pretty insulted FOR them. And I don’t get a THING from that except sadness which isn’t something I see as a reward.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on October 04, 2008 at 7:29 am
So, what is/was the self-interest of the writer?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( QuestionAuthority ) on October 04, 2008 at 1:46 am
Certainly one only has to participate in a morning commute or two to conclude that we are barely more than monkeys with cell phones.
It may be true that there is no selfless act, no purely altruistic motive, no completely unselfish deed. But does there need to be?
Can one separate the motive (which can never be known) from the act itself? A person may run into the burning building to save the life of another for any number of personal reasons; guilt, narcissism, pride, biological programming. Can it be enough that a life is saved? Does the act itself leave others diminished, neutral or enriched? Perhaps all three!
And what of the effect on the actor himself or herself? Can it be that a “selfless act” committed for selfish reasons may result in the growth of the actor? Certainly no person who ever ran into a burning building, for whatever reason, walks away from the event unchanged.
And what of the “disinterested” observer? His level of detachment affords him the luxury of choosing how to interpret the act itself, to make observations, ascribe motivations to the actors, bring his life experience and observations to judge for himself ultimately what it all means.
But it really doesn’t matter whether we’re just a bunch of self-absorbed monkeys acting out 60 million years of biological programming, or if we’re spiritual beings capable of rising above self interest and committing truly selfless acts.
Because the only thing that really matters is how do I choose to live my life?
Do I choose to exploit an opportunity to my own benefit or consider the interests of all and choose to do what’s fair? If I’m afraid of terrorists will I look the other way if my government tortures innocent people to keep me safe?
When I walk past the burning building and hear a tiny cry from inside, will I run inside?
The answer can’t be found in assessing the motivations of others, it can only be found within yourself.
Report Inappropriate Comment