On being self-centered

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
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."

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I was trying to clarify that there are two possible answers to that question: self-benefit and moral obligation.

The first answer doesn't mean anything.

Some people don't think the second answer is valid. They don't believe in absolute right/wrong, or they agree with Rand. I happen to think that position is incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heat is an objective reality. Without heat, the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) would not be true. So heat is a real property quantified in physics, not a human-imposed judgment.

This may seem like a nitpick, but it's not. If physical properties of the universe are interpreted as arbitrary, it's no surprise that moral laws would be seen that way as well.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

If there's no such thing as "wrong," then it can't be "wrong" to consider only what you want. (That is how you get ideas like murder for fun, which to me are ridiculous.)

As has been said elsewhere in this thread, it makes most people happy when their family, friends, neighbors, and other strangers are happy. You are probably no exception. So being nice to other people will probably make you happy too.

In doing so, are you only considering your own well-being? Maybe. I'm not going to argue it either way.

[Big Poppa Smurf]

When I think of self-centered people I don't like, it's not so much that they're always looking out for themselves, but that they are incredibly boring since all they do is talk about themselves and their problems and their boring self-centered life every chance they get. Like when you come back from summer vacation and there's that group of kids who asks you how your summer was, and then they interrupt you to say how awesome their summer was and what cool stuff they did? I HATE THOSE KIDS

[Dids]

Grunching this thread.

It's long been my belief that everybody acts in their own self interest. Even the super nice and alltruistic do so because it makes them feel good. It's basically a fantastic coincidence that being a nice, decent, givining person feels awesome, so humans tend to get along to some extent.

However, I feel like when people say "he's self centered" what they typically mean are "he's unaware of things that don't specifically involve him" or "he's selfish". One is being uninformed and unaware, which is just bad because it limits you. The other probably just means that the dude in question enjoys life less than you do.

[El Diablo]

Ja,

Just skimmed the responses, but social acceptance, love from others, human interaction, these are all things that most people crave to some degree. Taking actions that impact others is a good way to increase the positive levels of those things, correspondingly increasing your happiness as well. So, the person who thinks about the impact of his actions and makes decisions that will benefit others as well oftentimes ends up further increasing his own happiness as well.

[JaBlue]

Felson,
first off thanks for such detailed responses.

[ QUOTE ]
Heat is an objective reality. Without heat, the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) would not be true. So heat is a real property quantified in physics, not a human-imposed judgment


[/ QUOTE ]

I think our misunderstanding is coming from what we're assuming heat means. When I say "heat depends on humans for interpretation" I'm talking about the sense-data heat that is linked with the movement of particles that people commonly talk about when they say something like "its hot." When you're saying it, you're saying heat is the movement of those particles.

The quantification of heat is done by considering the collective velocity of groups of molecules, and is a quality in an object in that it is what we call the movement of those particles... but how is heat not nothing more than sentient interpretation of those moving particles? In places where there is no life, moving particles aren't hot or cold - they're just moving particles. The moving particles exist without humans, heat does not.

Could you go into more depth about why heat should be considered objective reality? There's a good chance I don't know enough of the science right now.

[ QUOTE ]

If there's no such thing as "wrong," then it can't be "wrong" to consider only what you want.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolute moral right and wrong is not the same thing as choosing a "better" (more rational option). If I hold that there is no right or wrong, it seems like I am committed to the position that there's no reason not to prefer the utility afforded by rational decisions to the lack of utility afforded by making rational decisions as these are are just things that I've been trained to prefer; again, "utility" is not an objective quality of the world. But if part of human nature includes pleasure-seeking, which seems self-evident, it is clear why I may prefer the simplicity and convenience that lead to pleasure that rational decisions tend to give me.

and now, returning to looser language...

Big Poppa Smurf,
I agree, but aren't you being annoyed by the pride that results from their self-centeredness rather than their self-centeredness itself?

El D,
Yeah, people have talked about that. And that's why I'm on the East Coast spending my spring break with my brother and sister instead of partying/roadtripping/whatever with my friends. I chose to be here because it is way more gratifying for me. With this thread I was hoping to see a viable argument made against the guy that would rather party with his buds. We all know that these people exist and most people disapprove of their behavior, but I think I'm fine with it - at least for now. I probably wouldn't choose them as my friends but as long as it doesn't effect me, whatever makes them happy isn't gonna bother me. Its none of my business.

[EverettKings]

[ QUOTE ]
Ja,

Just skimmed the responses, but social acceptance, love from others, human interaction, these are all things that most people crave to some degree. Taking actions that impact others is a good way to increase the positive levels of those things, correspondingly increasing your happiness as well. So, the person who thinks about the impact of his actions and makes decisions that will benefit others as well oftentimes ends up further increasing his own happiness as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

But then, helping others is in the end an act of self interest, yes? It's an act designed to increase your own happiness.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
Most self centered people are completely unaware of the game theory or any type of power negotiating. So being self centered is good, but when we refer to self centered people as an insult, we usually mean ones that are stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Arturius,
In my experience the people that have a problem with self-centered people don't like them because they think that self-centeredness is a character flaw, not because they think the self-centered person is stupid. And why try to make someone feel bad for doing something you think is stupid? Seems like a pretty meaningless behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaningless behavior? What the hell are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

i also agree that jablue keeps confusing me with his posts

[JaBlue]

Art/Bruise,
Do you guys really get something out of making fun of people that aren't as smart as you? What purpose does it serve for you?

Its cool if someone who is smart is self-centered, but not if someone who is dumb is? Why?

[EverettKings]

OP, the only reason to sacrifice any of your own happiness for another is if it will set a good example that will hopefully induce similar behavior. The idea being that the more people behave this way, the greater the overall gain for all of the people involved. Take your scenario:

[ QUOTE ]


choice B - brings me 10HP and you 5HP
choice C - brings me 12HP and doesn't affect you

...

I think many would maintain that I should choose C, but why?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were a complete douchebag with no chance of changing the way you think and act, or if you were going to die 5 seconds after this, then I would choose C every time. There is no way that me helping you is going beyond this point, so screw that I'll take my extra +2 HP.

However, if you were a friend of mine or any person that I considered at least a little bit impressionable, I'd pick B every time. The idea is that you'll see me make a small sacrifice for your greater gain, and hopefully you will be induced to make similar sacrifices for others. Maybe you'll be nice to somebody, who will be nice to somebody, who in turn will help me out at some point. So by taking a small hit for the larger gain of another, I am increasing the chance that others will make intelligent sacrifices that help me (albeit in a possibly roundabout fashion).

If enough people follow this pattern, making decisions based on the overall happiness of humanity instead of themselves, then the overall amount of happiness in the world will increase, which by default must come back around and help every person in it. Call me idealistic or unrealistic, but I would bet good money that the lot of people in the world classified as "self centered" are significantly less happy than those who are not, because the community of non-self-centered people are regularly making sacrifices for the greater good (of other people that they consider non-self-centered), and the community as a whole cannot help but prosper. People who are considered @ssholes generally get ostracized from this behavior and reap siginificantly less benefit.


There's no guarantee that this works and I have no idea how much my altruistic actions have actually had a positive effect worth the sacrifices, but I'd like to think that there's a chance that it works. Not so much because it paints a pretty picture of the world, but more because the alternative view of the world flat-out sucks.


Everett