Richard Dawkins’, The Selfish Gene, believes that humans are fundamentally selfish. They have hidden agendas and only contribute to society when socially imposed rewards and punishments render it in their self-interest to do so. Upon reading this some of you will immediately disqualify this by saying, that not everyone is selfish. Any reasonable person will agree that they try to behave favourably, whether they succeed or not is another question, but they are willing to sacrifice in the pursuit of truth and justice. Dawkins’ explains that morality in humans is nothing more than a cultural facade to cover our basic selfish human nature. “Be warned,” he states, “that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.”
Far too idealistic?
Pinker believes we only conform to social norms out of fear of losing our good reputation.
Too naive?
Michael Ghislin biologist eloquently wrote in 1974, " “Scratch an altruist and watch a hypocrite bleed.”
When was the last time you helped someone, was it a friend, a stranger on the street. It may have been easy, or it may have involved considerable effort. Why did you help? Was it to benefit you, or the other person. The immediate answer by most people would be to help and benefit the other person. If you think this, you believe in altruism, the term used to describe the motivation to help others without personal gain but if you think carefully about this, could it be you simply wanted to avoid the consequences of refusing to help, to avoid the feelings of guilt, or to escape being seen by others in a bad light. The view that all human behaviour is selfishly motivated has dominated for many years. Freud’s theory has interpreted helping others as motivated purely by some form of self benefit, but how could he know someone’s true motives for helping, how could he distinguish between an altruistic act and a clever attempt to gain praise. Perhaps those who did not feel empathy only helped when escape from the situation was difficult, in contrast with those who did feel empathy, helped regardless of the difficulties they may have encountered. This may offer some proof that not all people are selfish, all of the time.
For every action there is a reaction. Dawkins is the natural reaction against an oppressive Christian culture, where people become dissociated from their true feelings and emotions. Our children are brought up to feel guilty, embarrassed and ashamed about themselves. So what Dawkins is saying is partly true, but this is only because of the way they were raised -punishment rather than positive reinforcement. I haven’t read the book, but as you describe it, it sounds like an oversimplification of human nature.
One does not have to be a Christian to feel empathy, practice morality. Morality comes from within and is part of human nature. The role of religion is secondary.
Let’s play around with terms here just a wee: can morality – or the set of actions that promote the greatest good – possibly have anything to do with self-disinterest, or self-uninterest, or even self-anti-interest?
Or rather should we take a clue from our dearly departed father of game theory and namesake of the Nash equilibrium: that the greatest good can only be found by approaching the “game of life” such that there is some objectively determinable solution to this game, and that none of the players in the game could possibly possess a valid strategy that wholly ignores the rational expectations of a positive outcome for any other player?
At least, I think that vaguely approximates how some random Ivy league economics professor would describe the situation at hand!
There is no act without a self. Acting is always and only ever attributed to a self. Even passivity or self-sacrifice are self-ish actions. Your question only makes sense if, to begin with, you can find me an act which is devoid from a self.
Can you demonstrate the existence of such an act? Just one will do.
Please depart from your inclinations and do not say an act of God. [-o<
Three people on a boat with only supplies for two. It is clear that one must get out of the boat. They all agree to draw straws. The altruists lived on.
Selfish means the lack of consideration of others. Selfless means complete lack of self concern (complete giving, blind self-sacrificing).
Altruist merely means to treat oneself just as one treats others and with no special regard or trickery - the sacrifice of one’s ego and hubris.
Gandhi was passionately prejudiced towards black Africans, as clearly displayed by his own writings during his 20 years in South Africa. He promoted racial hatred, in theory, and campaigned for racial segregation, in practice.
“The term “Kaffir” is a pejorative South African term for black people which is equivalent to the ‘n’ word. Use of this term has been a criminal offense in South Africa since 1975. Despite always using it to describe black Africans, Gandhi was fully aware of the offensive nature of the word. This is demonstrated by Gandhi’s comment during a religious conflict in India, when he said: “If ‘Kaffir’ is a term of opprobrium, how much more so is Chandal?” [CWMG, Vol. 28, p. 62] “Chandal” is a racist term for low-caste Hindus.”
HA! I believe Gandhi is the perfect example of “scratch an altruist and watch a hypocrite bleed”.
