On being self-centered

[JaBlue]

Stuey,
"cuz its impossible"
You're a special breed. I think for most people, though, this situation is possible. Why do you think you're different?

Reef,
"Why should anyone consider anything but their own well-being?
--
these types of people generally have no friends"

If they're happy without friends, what does it matter?
If they're not happy without friends, they're not doing a good job of figuring out what will make them happy.

pokermom,

"If my happiness is my only concern then why not kill you and your family for what I could gain?"

Well, if you are truly happier killing me and my family, then why not? For most people this isn't the case because they would be unhappy after killing someone else and they would be unhappy faced with the legal consequences involved, but maybe murderers (thieves etc.) run their own analysis like this and think they will be happy killing someone.

"If my happiness is my only concern then why not hurt and disappoint you in any given situation because, after all, I'm only concerned with myself."

Again, if this doesn't affect your happiness, why not?

"It's an excuse to put yourself before all others"
Why is this so bad? I'm contending that maybe, properly considered, I do come before all others. And that you should think that you come before all others.

I think your examples fail in this context because if I accept that I should come before all others in my own decision making it would be inconsistent to say that you shouldn't consider yourself before all others in your decision making. Though it may make me unhappy - or dead - I can still understand it.

[Claunchy]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what mathematicization is, but valuation and comparison are all you need.

[/ QUOTE ]
Meh, mathematize, whatever. My point still is that approaching things like happiness logically probably won't get you far. You're never gonna "figure out" how to be happy through analysis. At least I don't know anyone who has.

[ QUOTE ]
More on this please. All I see right now is a claim and no support.

[/ QUOTE ]

We live in a world, with other people and things. This is true not because I can prove it to you logically, but because to think otherwise is silly and academic, and basically ignores the reality of existence.

If you won't concede this, then there is no point in trying to convince you not to be self-centered, because in a world where you're totally alone you definitely should be self-centered.



Reading your latest post, it seems like you're equating "happiness," which I would define as a more fulfilling long-term contentness, with gratification, which is what you want at some particular moment.

[snowden719]

[ QUOTE ]

"I guess you could argue that when I help others, I only do so for selfish reasons (i.e., it makes me happy to help), but I think that point of view is really solipsistic and wrong."

More on this please. All I see right now is a claim and no support.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm always confused by people who take this line, that everything, even things where it seems almost certain that they are motivated out of altruism, is said to be motivated by pure self-interest. However, the argument could just as easily go the other way, with everything I do being solely for the good of others.
We would never say that the reason X steals is so she can get money so that her friends will be happy of X's good fortune. In these cases it seems terribly backward to describe the reasoning in that way.
Similarly, when a man saves the child from the burning building his reason isn't to be famous or because he feels good about saving children (although presumably he enjoys those two things) but because it's the right thing to do and he values the life of the child more than the risk of his own death. Looking at it in any other way seems to get his reasons backwards. Altruism is possible in cases where one gains, that gain just has to not be the motivating force or reason behind the action.

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people say that being self-centered is a bad thing.

Why?

In some sense each individual is alone. Only he makes choices and only he is responsible for them. Does it follow that his fundamental - and only necessary - concern is how those choices effect him? If not, why should he worry about how those choices effect others in a way that is not rooted in his own happiness?

Why should anyone consider anything but their own well-being?

[/ QUOTE ]

The effect on others almost always affects his own happiness. Things like a good reputation, loyalty, and trustworthiness have material benefits beyond the reward of being a good person.

You may say that a self-centered person will take this into account and develop loyalty and trustworthiness, but that is not how people use the term self-centered. Individuals described as self-centered are both too immature to realize that there are benefits to thinking of others, and also fundamentally not empathic. MTV's sweet sixteen show comes to mind.

[skunkworks]

JaBlue,

Just wait 'til you get through the next chapter of Atlas Shrugged. It. Will. Blow. Your. Mind.

[Stuey]

[ QUOTE ]
Stuey,
"cuz its impossible"
You're a special breed. I think for most people, though, this situation is possible. Why do you think you're different?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I am different. I could simply be buying into my idea because it is what currently works for me. Just like you are buying into yours. Very good chance we are both wrong and the best answer is somewhere in between.

[lapoker17]

jablue - yes, all people are naturally self centered.

[felson]

The problem with the question
[ QUOTE ]
Why should anyone consider anything but their own well-being?

[/ QUOTE ]
is that "should" can be understood in two different ways:

1. "I should do X" = "it would benefit me to do X"
2. "I should do X" = "I am morally obligated to do X"

If "should" is meant in the first sense, then the question is silly. "Would it benefit me to consider anything but my own well-being?" That only leads you in circles.

If "should" is meant in the second sense, then the answer depends on whether you believe in absolute right and wrong. From your answer regarding murder, you apparently don't. In that case, "should" loses meaning.

And that's the issue here. Happiness points and self-centeredness are irrelevant.

[JaBlue]

Claunchy,
"My point still is that approaching things like happiness logically probably won't get you far. You're never gonna "figure out" how to be happy through analysis. At least I don't know anyone who has."

Of course I can figure out how to be happy through analysis! I do it every day. Today I am faced with an infinite variety of choices; watch TV all day, read, mix those two, hang out with younger brother and sister when they get out of school. I'm going to choose to hang out with my younger brother and sister because I think its the best of all my options - considering the immediate and future expected happiness of all these options, the brother and sister option is best. Yeah, I'm not using pen and paper or even numbers. I'm still quantifying each option to the extent that I can compare them.

"We live in a world, with other people and things. This is true not because I can prove it to you logically, but because to think otherwise is silly and academic, and basically ignores the reality of existence.

If you won't concede this, then there is no point in trying to convince you not to be self-centered, because in a world where you're totally alone you definitely should be self-centered."

Nowhere in my posts did I say that we don't live in a world with other people and other things. I said that one is alone in the sense that only one chooses how one acts. I still don't see any support for your claim.


"Reading your latest post, it seems like you're equating "happiness," which I would define as a more fulfilling long-term contentness, with gratification, which is what you want at some particular moment."

I am definitely not talking about instant gratification. Sorry if that was unclear. In the murderer example, for instance, for many it might be instantly gratifying to kill and rob a family, but after weighing this against future risks of unhappiness, they choose not to kill and rob a family.

snowden,
"I'm always confused by people who take this line, that everything, even things where it seems almost certain that they are motivated out of altruism, is said to be motivated by pure self-interest. However, the argument could just as easily go the other way, with everything I do being solely for the good of others."

There is reasoning behind choosing actions that benefit me and there is no reasoning - yet - to show why I should choose actions only on the basis of their benefit to others. I don't see how 'the argument could just as easily go the other way.'

"Similarly, when a man saves the child from the burning building his reason isn't to be famous or because he feels good about saving children (although presumably he enjoys those two things) but because it's the right thing to do and he values the life of the child more than the risk of his own death"

I agree that individuals don't always act out of only self-interest. My question is, "why shouldn't they?"

As for why that particular guy did it, its probably his sense of right and wrong. But where does that come from?

In the case of the guy saving the kid, maybe it would be more correct for the guy to not try to save the kid. Would you really fault someone for choosing to not run into the burning building to save the unknown kid? Should you?

"Just wait 'til you get through the next chapter of Atlas Shrugged."

Haven't read it, probably never will.

Stuey,
You said its impossible for you to choose option A, but upon further consideration I think this is highly unlikely.

Lets say Donald Trump comes up to you and offers you an arbitrarily large amount of money to stomp on somebody's foot and run away. You can't tell them why or give them money or contact them afterwards or your money will be forfeit.

Surely you will piss the person off, and cause them some -HP, but you expect lots and lots of future +HP from your money. Would you really turn Trump down?

felson,
I don't think your point about "should" is relevant. What I'm asking doesn't change if we omit "should anyone" and just say "Why consider anything but my own well-being."

"If "should" is meant in the second sense, then the answer depends on whether you believe in absolute right and wrong. From your answer regarding murder, you apparently don't. In that case, "should" loses meaning."

Great point.

You're right, I don't believe in absolute right and wrong - I think these are human-imposed judgments in the same sense that "heat" is an imposed judgment by sentient beings on the movement of tiny particles.

Are you saying that in the absence of absolute right and wrong there is nothing to consider other than one's own well-being?

[Colt McCoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should anyone consider anything but their own well-being?

--

these types of people generally have no friends

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why people think it's bad, and why they're wrong. People equate "self-centered" with "never considers anything but anything but their own well-being."

Self centeredness obviously is not black and white, and viewing it that way is absurd. It clearly comes in varying degrees. Being self centered does not require one to be completely inconsiderate of others or completely unwilling to do anything for anyone else. Just as those at the other end of the spectrum are not precluded from ever doing anything in their own interest.