I've come to realize something: nobody else will ever put your needs or comfort first. You have to do it yourself. I'm not sure exactly what the optimal solution is, but here is an attempt: * By default, be selfish. Only consider your own needs and comforts. * If all of your needs and comforts are being met, and you cause disproportionate work for someone else's needs and wants, that is "too selfish". * If not all of your comforts are being met, you have choice on whether to choose your own direct comfort or to help someone else (humans, being social creatures, do gain a form of happiness from pleasing someone else). Note that this is a choice between comforts that affect you. * If you are being pressured into helping, someone is trying to take away your choice. That alone is justification for not helping.
Interesting. I don't follow this, though: Disproportionate in relation to what? To what other people put into another person's needs and wants? What if they help to push you to help them? I suppose the last point takes priority over disproportionality if the conditions are met. What do you see the act of helping others as? Is it reasonably selfish? Unreasonably selfish? Altruistic?and you cause disproportionate work for someone else's needs and wants, that is "too selfish"
If not all of your comforts are being met, you have choice on whether to choose your own direct comfort or to help someone else (humans, being social creatures, do gain a form of happiness from pleasing someone else)
Humans, being social creatures, do work together to make things easier overall. Some people, whether by innate ability or by circumstance, do have an easier time doing certain tasks, so it is most effective for the common good if each person does what they are best at. If you've ever studied basic economics, this will be familiar. Now, I'm not saying it is reasonable for everyone to act in what the manner would be if everyone worked for the common good. The simple reality is that people won't (and I'm sure it can be argued that they can't) always do that. The possibility of so acting is a necessity. Promoting the common good is selfish in the end - though others will also be selfish in receiving (by not thinking/caring about the cost to you). But it is important to keep each possibility open. --- One way I have said this is "Everybody is always selfish. Some people just have a larger sense of self". That is, your self may cover your family, your tribe, your city, your nation, your planet, or even all life. I'm not saying there is a "right" extent of self for any circumstance. But when you don't ever expand it, that is "too selfish".Disproportionate in relation to what?
What do you see the act of helping others as?
Brilliantly put. It put me off guard when a friend of mine suggested that those who act towards others do so to gain self-esteem or an appreciation for themselves in their own eyes, implying that acting towards others is inheritently bad, for you're as if serving others with that. At the time I had the idea of altruism being separate from the self: I thought that people could either act towards others or towards themselves, or, to put it more precisely, to work towards others' pleasure and comfort or their own. It's interesting to see this idea fall apart: we do act selfishly when we help others, but it may result in benefit for others, from which we reap pleasure of self as well. Why not? I understand that it's impossible in the way we picture ideal, but why not strive for it - that is, to help others either rather than or as well as yourself?One way I have said this is "Everybody is always selfish. Some people just have a larger sense of self". That is, your self may cover your family, your tribe, your city, your nation, your planet, or even all life.
Now, I'm not saying it is reasonable for everyone to act in what the manner would be if everyone worked for the common good.
Because when only some people follow the ideal, it is likely to lead to a worse situation than the all-selfish case, and all you will accomplish is being an enabler. Now certainly, we should act in a way that allows the ideal if people start to cooperate. And if there are only a few dissenters they can be socially shamed into cooperating. (and social shaming is, scientifically, a good thing.)Why not? I understand that it's impossible in the way we picture ideal, but why not strive for it - that is, to help others either rather than or as well as yourself?
It limits the negative effects of evolution (which, I might point out, includes both genetic and environmental/social mutations). Remember that evolution is random, it does not have any direction. And in particular, it has no requirement to head toward an optimum, only cull certain negative mutations. Some negative mutations have a direct personal effect - a physical deformity, or a mental failure to hide from a predator. But others have an indirect, social, or delayed effect - imagine, say, an individual who failed to collect food for the group to survive winter, or even raided the stores instead of collecting when food was common. It is clearly in the group's best interest to punish that individual - either by excluding the individual from specific group activities, or even outcasting or attacking. Afterwards, the contrary individual will either conform or perish. Remember that fwd-fwd-fwd-re-fwd story about the 5 monkeys and the banana on the ladder, where they would get sprayed if one of the monkeys went for the banana, so they beat him up even after replacing the monkeys one by one? It is often used (correctly) as a story warning that we don't understand why we perform social punishments. But it is also a demonstration of evolution's protections working "as designed". None of the monkeys had any reason to believe that anything had changed to negate the need for the social punishment - and remember, evolution has no motive to be perfect. As a higher-thinking species, we can of course ask ourselves whether any specific social punishment is actually giving any benefit. Since our social behavior is learned over millions of years but our history only lasts thousands, we cannot of course remember where they all come from (if there even is a single cause). But we must realize that every single one of them has some cause, either a problem that we still face today or else a problem that we (or some subgroup of humans at least) faced in the past. The internet is often stated to be a place that you can be anonymous. And yet, all internet cultures spontaneously enforce a very strict social rule: you do not change your identity. If you take some action under one pseudonym, you cannot just start using another to escape punishment or make it seem like your position has more support. If you have some affiliation with a company, you must not promote that company or degrade its competitors without revealing your affiliation (but if you do reveal your affiliation, there is no punishment for holding your position, although it does allow you to be punished for other reasons). This all comes from a variety of sources, but what made me start to put it all together was reading an article called something like "Why do birds sing?".