Under no circumstances is selfishness a virtue, per say. A virtue remains a virtue always, selfishness can only be helpful on occasion. The argument involving theft (to steal is in no-ones best interest, thus it is selfish not to steal) i think is purely ridiculous. A selfish person will think only of themselves. A selfish person will not think of other selfish people, only their immediate "needs". To be selfish is to act without rationality, to satisfy the immediate needs of oneself. A selfish person rarely, if ever will pause and consider the rationality of their actions, or the impact they will have on others.
I agree with Tim in respect to selfishness as a virtue. Also, I believe rationality is not a virtue either; to be rational is to "[use] reason or logic in thinking out a problem,"¹ and to be virtuous entails that your actions and intentions are morally and ethically sound. Although rationality could serve as a means to understand our ethical dilemmas, and a facet to procure the optimal decision, there is no virtue behind it. Not only is the human mind subject to rationality, but also emotions, which consequentially affect your decisions as well. Without emotions, which operate irrationally, we would not be subject to many virtues. I believe being virtuous could transcend from the combination of rationale and emotion, but to be rational is to be human. The power to reason is intrinsic, whereas virtues are not.
To me, virtues are qualities in a person that cause them to benefit others. Now, selfishness is inherent in all people, nobody, in my opinion can really do anything that doesn't benefit them in some way or another. Now there are many characteristics a person can have, and all of them are selfish. The good, and the bad. But, just because selfishness is the root of good characteristics, does not mean it, itself is a good thing. Now, according to my definition of a virtue, the reason selfishness does not fit is because it does nothing to benefit others, it is clear in people who do things that only benefit themselves. Virtues, on the other hand, do have a degree of selfishness imbedded in them, but are not selfish in of themselves because the consequences of the acts, that are done by somebody who has virtues, don't totally benefit themselves.
When I pondered that fact, I immediately thought of one of my favorite characters from anything, Jack Rakan. To sum Jack Rakan up in a sentence is that he is a jerk, he refuses to help the main characters deal with a problem that he helped put to rest the first time without any sort of real prompting. He eventually goes to the aid of the main characters after being attacked himself, and even then only after sending a bill inscribed with a large amount of money to the father of one of the main characters. Jack would then proceed to act as a jerk throughout his time in the story, only ever acting in his own interests. Regarding the time he helped save the world, he only did that because he would lose his place to live and because he thought it would be nice to have every government owe him. In Jack Rakan's case, selfishness is a virtue. As for others, I can't really say.
For those of you who think selfishness in inherent in humans, do you think we have the capacity to over come selfishness? Do we have a duty to sacrifice ourselves for the benefit of others?
If virtues have some degree of selfishness embedded in them, can any act be selfless?
In Jack Rankan's case of saving the world, is it the deed or the intent that is more important when judging if something was virtuous?
I think that yes selfishness is inherent in humans and I think that the ability to overcome this selfishness is not possible. I think it's shown that when being put into a situation where survival instincts kick in, one needs to be selfish for their own protection. The book Lord of the Flies is a perfect example that relates to this question because put under enough pressure and stress we all break down eventually and in the need for survival we would all put ourselves before others as this is just human nature. Many say they can rise above that, because selfishness in society in general is not seen as a positive quality however, I disagree because I think that we all have different breaking points as to when we would begin to put the needs of others behind in order to save ourselves. I think even if one is truly at peace with their life at some point in time, in whatever that might be, they are still selfish because they are not willing to give up the things that mean so much to them, while they know at the same time others are not as well off. Does this mean that people should dwell on life's problems and feel guilty evertime they experience happiness? No; while selfishness has it's negatives and I wouldn't consider it a virtue, I think it's just a part of human nature and something that will continue to be everpresent in our lives.
I do not believe that selfishness, under any circumstance, is a virtue. When I think of a virtue, I think of positive things, such as kindness and empathy. I have always been brought up to believe that selfishness was negative. When ever I would exhibit selfish behavior when I was little, I would never hear the end of it from my parents. I believe in the power of human kindness and I believe that humans do have the power to overcome selfishness. Take Mr. Scrouge for example. In my eyes he was the most selfish man on the planet, but he way able to overcome his negative ways. I do believe that everyone has the right to be selfish once in a while because as Ms. Craven said yesterday, bad relationships could be avoided from people on both ends being a bit more selfish. However, self centered and self absorbed people don't seem to get many places in life.
I do not believe that selfishness can be a virtue but i dont believe ever that selfish is a totally bad thing! People can be selfish about something that will only benefit themselves but it could be for a good reason. Say someone only usues you for something you have, and when you decide to not let them use it it could be considered selfish but, the other person was being selfish themselves. So was it the wrong thing, wouldnt this be considered a Golden Mean, for being too nice would be letting them use it even though it was rude of them and taking it away all the time would truley be selfish, wouldnt the middle be mild selfishness? And from the questions above, i dont believe we have the ability to overcome selfishness because over a time feeling that you gain nothing for yourself can build up and come out in a large does of selfishness. So in a way we can overcome it for a time but after a while weather it be long or short we will always be selfish. It's just in everyones nature. And yes i feel that we have to duty to sacrifce ourselves for the benefit of others because one of our responisbilites in the UDHR is to respect the rights of other people. Would you not sacrafice getting in line first at a fast food resturant to hold the door open for an elderly couple or a wheelchair person? Sacraficing ourselves doesnt have to be some big thing, it could be as small as that, but i believe it is everyones duty.
I believe that selfishness itself is not a virtue, but a lot of virtues that benefit others (generosity, kindness, honesty ect. ect.) benefit us to the same extent, if not more. for example: when you give to charity, do you do it because you like to give your money to help others, or because you get that warm, fuzzy giving feeling? personally, I'm somewhat known as an advice giver. I like to listen to people. I like to be a shoulder to cry on. However I know that I do it for my own benefit as well. I feel good when I help others, and I know that the favour will be returned. maybe that's what ayn rand meant? Being selfless to others can be considered selfish for yourself. Caitlin, you described scrooge. however, in the end, scrooge ended up giving not to be a giver, but because it made him feel better than money did. isn't that selfish of him? to give cause he felt good? or isn't it selfless, because he's helping others? it can be described as either. it depends on which response is more acceptable in society.
If virtues had some degree of selfishness embedded in them, they can still be selfless. It depends on the intentions; if one committed a selfless act with selfish intention, I would be readily apt to declare this act selfish. If, however, it is a selfless act with selfless intent, or a selfish act with selfless intent, I would deem it selfless based on the good intentions one has.
Also my first comment I was agreeing with Cain, rather than Tim. My bad.
While I don't think that selfishness is such a bad thing, I wouldn't consider it to be a virtue. Personally I would define a virtue as a trait that is morally good and I just don't think selfishness can be considered morally good. Kind of back to what Emilija was saying about how a lot of virtues that benefit others, benefit us as well, I can see how selfishness could be considered a virtue. However, unlike those virtues that seem to always benefit others, selfishness seems to always benefit us instead. A selfish act is in one's own interests - while that doesn't necessarily rule out helping others - isn't a virtue in my opinion.
HA i is da first!!
ReplyDeleteUnder no circumstances is selfishness a virtue, per say. A virtue remains a virtue always, selfishness can only be helpful on occasion. The argument involving theft (to steal is in no-ones best interest, thus it is selfish not to steal) i think is purely ridiculous. A selfish person will think only of themselves. A selfish person will not think of other selfish people, only their immediate "needs". To be selfish is to act without rationality, to satisfy the immediate needs of oneself. A selfish person rarely, if ever will pause and consider the rationality of their actions, or the impact they will have on others.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tim in respect to selfishness as a virtue. Also, I believe rationality is not a virtue either; to be rational is to "[use] reason or logic in thinking out a problem,"¹ and to be virtuous entails that your actions and intentions are morally and ethically sound. Although rationality could serve as a means to understand our ethical dilemmas, and a facet to procure the optimal decision, there is no virtue behind it. Not only is the human mind subject to rationality, but also emotions, which consequentially affect your decisions as well. Without emotions, which operate irrationally, we would not be subject to many virtues. I believe being virtuous could transcend from the combination of rationale and emotion, but to be rational is to be human. The power to reason is intrinsic, whereas virtues are not.
ReplyDelete¹ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtue
To me, virtues are qualities in a person that cause them to benefit others. Now, selfishness is inherent in all people, nobody, in my opinion can really do anything that doesn't benefit them in some way or another. Now there are many characteristics a person can have, and all of them are selfish. The good, and the bad. But, just because selfishness is the root of good characteristics, does not mean it, itself is a good thing. Now, according to my definition of a virtue, the reason selfishness does not fit is because it does nothing to benefit others, it is clear in people who do things that only benefit themselves. Virtues, on the other hand, do have a degree of selfishness imbedded in them, but are not selfish in of themselves because the consequences of the acts, that are done by somebody who has virtues, don't totally benefit themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhen I pondered that fact, I immediately thought of one of my favorite characters from anything, Jack Rakan. To sum Jack Rakan up in a sentence is that he is a jerk, he refuses to help the main characters deal with a problem that he helped put to rest the first time without any sort of real prompting. He eventually goes to the aid of the main characters after being attacked himself, and even then only after sending a bill inscribed with a large amount of money to the father of one of the main characters. Jack would then proceed to act as a jerk throughout his time in the story, only ever acting in his own interests. Regarding the time he helped save the world, he only did that because he would lose his place to live and because he thought it would be nice to have every government owe him. In Jack Rakan's case, selfishness is a virtue. As for others, I can't really say.
ReplyDeleteA few questions to stir up the pot:
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who think selfishness in inherent in humans, do you think we have the capacity to over come selfishness? Do we have a duty to sacrifice ourselves for the benefit of others?
If virtues have some degree of selfishness embedded in them, can any act be selfless?
In Jack Rankan's case of saving the world, is it the deed or the intent that is more important when judging if something was virtuous?
I think that yes selfishness is inherent in humans and I think that the ability to overcome this selfishness is not possible. I think it's shown that when being put into a situation where survival instincts kick in, one needs to be selfish for their own protection. The book Lord of the Flies is a perfect example that relates to this question because put under enough pressure and stress we all break down eventually and in the need for survival we would all put ourselves before others as this is just human nature. Many say they can rise above that, because selfishness in society in general is not seen as a positive quality however, I disagree because I think that we all have different breaking points as to when we would begin to put the needs of others behind in order to save ourselves. I think even if one is truly at peace with their life at some point in time, in whatever that might be, they are still selfish because they are not willing to give up the things that mean so much to them, while they know at the same time others are not as well off. Does this mean that people should dwell on life's problems and feel guilty evertime they experience happiness? No; while selfishness has it's negatives and I wouldn't consider it a virtue, I think it's just a part of human nature and something that will continue to be everpresent in our lives.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that selfishness, under any circumstance, is a virtue. When I think of a virtue, I think of positive things, such as kindness and empathy. I have always been brought up to believe that selfishness was negative. When ever I would exhibit selfish behavior when I was little, I would never hear the end of it from my parents. I believe in the power of human kindness and I believe that humans do have the power to overcome selfishness. Take Mr. Scrouge for example. In my eyes he was the most selfish man on the planet, but he way able to overcome his negative ways. I do believe that everyone has the right to be selfish once in a while because as Ms. Craven said yesterday, bad relationships could be avoided from people on both ends being a bit more selfish. However, self centered and self absorbed people don't seem to get many places in life.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that selfishness can be a virtue but i dont believe ever that selfish is a totally bad thing! People can be selfish about something that will only benefit themselves but it could be for a good reason. Say someone only usues you for something you have, and when you decide to not let them use it it could be considered selfish but, the other person was being selfish themselves. So was it the wrong thing, wouldnt this be considered a Golden Mean, for being too nice would be letting them use it even though it was rude of them and taking it away all the time would truley be selfish, wouldnt the middle be mild selfishness?
ReplyDeleteAnd from the questions above, i dont believe we have the ability to overcome selfishness because over a time feeling that you gain nothing for yourself can build up and come out in a large does of selfishness. So in a way we can overcome it for a time but after a while weather it be long or short we will always be selfish. It's just in everyones nature.
And yes i feel that we have to duty to sacrifce ourselves for the benefit of others because one of our responisbilites in the UDHR is to respect the rights of other people. Would you not sacrafice getting in line first at a fast food resturant to hold the door open for an elderly couple or a wheelchair person? Sacraficing ourselves doesnt have to be some big thing, it could be as small as that, but i believe it is everyones duty.
I believe that selfishness itself is not a virtue, but a lot of virtues that benefit others (generosity, kindness, honesty ect. ect.) benefit us to the same extent, if not more.
ReplyDeletefor example: when you give to charity, do you do it because you like to give your money to help others, or because you get that warm, fuzzy giving feeling?
personally, I'm somewhat known as an advice giver. I like to listen to people. I like to be a shoulder to cry on. However I know that I do it for my own benefit as well. I feel good when I help others, and I know that the favour will be returned.
maybe that's what ayn rand meant?
Being selfless to others can be considered selfish for yourself.
Caitlin, you described scrooge. however, in the end, scrooge ended up giving not to be a giver, but because it made him feel better than money did. isn't that selfish of him? to give cause he felt good? or isn't it selfless, because he's helping others?
it can be described as either.
it depends on which response is more acceptable in society.
also mrs craven said something today, about how ethics was connected to god. isnt it selfish to do nice things to others so YOU could go to heaven?
ReplyDeleteby the way, I am not a supporter of rand in any way, however I'm playing devil's advocate because of how it can all be flipped around to benefit you.
^^^ That. Totally agree with the heaven argument.
ReplyDeletethank you.
ReplyDeleteand I should again, clarify something. I dislike rand because of her other philosophies, not the selfishness one
If virtues had some degree of selfishness embedded in them, they can still be selfless. It depends on the intentions; if one committed a selfless act with selfish intention, I would be readily apt to declare this act selfish. If, however, it is a selfless act with selfless intent, or a selfish act with selfless intent, I would deem it selfless based on the good intentions one has.
ReplyDeleteAlso my first comment I was agreeing with Cain, rather than Tim. My bad.
While I don't think that selfishness is such a bad thing, I wouldn't consider it to be a virtue. Personally I would define a virtue as a trait that is morally good and I just don't think selfishness can be considered morally good. Kind of back to what Emilija was saying about how a lot of virtues that benefit others, benefit us as well, I can see how selfishness could be considered a virtue. However, unlike those virtues that seem to always benefit others, selfishness seems to always benefit us instead. A selfish act is in one's own interests - while that doesn't necessarily rule out helping others - isn't a virtue in my opinion.
ReplyDelete