The
most famous exponent of self-interest was Narcissus. Perhaps he
never existed, however it is from him that we get the concept of
personal concern to the exclusion of anything else. But such an
outlook is not unique. We've all experienced it.
As
babies we were unaware that there was anything outside of ourselves.
Our experience didn't include anything else. Even the few sights and
sounds we experienced were only relevant to the extent that they
affected us. Eventually, when we got older, we began to appreciate
the world around us; only then did we recognize that there were
others who were not part of us or answerable to us, and they saw us
in the same light. We were becoming socialized.
Unfortunately,
many never complete the process. Tom Wolfe coined the term “Me
Generation” to refer to self-absorbed “baby boomers”i
whose primary focus was themselves. And it was not a small number of
people. There was a culture of narcissism that saw the world only as
it related to them – individually. That was the prism for seeing,
and then judging, everything around them, from politics to personal
appearance to the “relevance” of college courses. It was a
self-indulgent generationii
that promoted the “sexual revolution” and anything else that felt
good. Instant gratification and personal satisfaction took
precedence over patience and community development. And, to a
significant degree, such a perspective persists.
The
more common “self-interest” though – the one on which most
people focus – is that related to living our lives in a world that
is not always to our liking. We need jobs and we seek advancement.
We want what's best for us – the “good things.” We look for
shortcuts around problems – at least those we choose to see or
those we simply can't avoid. It isn't a matter of not recognizing
others. Rather we are seeking to improve our own lot – even if
it's at their expense. “What's in it for me?” That often
involves negotiating with those around us – in the workplace, on
the street, and at home. Our goal is to stay ahead of the Joneses.
The Me Generation didn't care about others. We compete with them.
Our world is a little larger than that of the narcissistic
individual. Our kind of attitude probably predominates among most
people. For some – the poor and starving, especially in the “Third
World”– it's a matter of survival rather than advantage, and it's
less focused on competition with neighbors. The focus is entirely
on the self.
Another
level is inhabited by those whose self-interest extends beyond their
own time. For them, the future – and, specifically, the future of
their own families – is their concern. They feel an obligation to
provide for those who come after them. They, too, want to improve
“their” lot, but it will be through their descendants. They are concerned for
what follows, since it is an extension of themselves; they want to
provide for their heritageiii
– for their children and grandchildren. Like the self-interest
that tells them they must beat out everyone around them – that they
must win in the competition – this need is to be sure that their
offspring are better off than anyone else's. It's selfish, but it's
more forward thinking than a desire for personal gains.
Guilt
elimination may be another need in the quest for self-interest.
Thus, in addition to the premium placed on altruistic behavior by
religions, regret and a (rational or irrational) feeling of
responsibility, as well as the need to drive it away, are important
factors in the generosity of these angels. Their interest in others
may seem to be more widely aimed and selfless, but the source remains
very personal. Too often it's a matter of self-interest, as
perceived by the well-off.
That's
not such a big surprise. We all have free will, and we exercise it
in every
decision we make,iv
even those that involve bad choices. When we choose the lesser of
evils, we choose what we think will be less harmful to us. We decide
what is in our best interests. And giving away money doesn't present
people with unwelcome choices. In addition to fulfilling a religious
precept or ridding ourselves of guilt, we enjoy basking in the
admiration by others of our generosity. Win, win. Anonymous
donations happen, but not very often.
But
if we look at the total picture of self-interest, the actions of the
majority of people whether rich or poor, we're not very different
from the “lower” animals. You may be a Darwinian or a
Creationist,v
but it's hard not to see people's actions as aimed at the continuity
of the human species. However we reached the point we're now at,vi
the goal for all groups is making things better – for ourselves and
our children. And if our designs work, the entire human race will
benefit. That may not be our intent, but it is the likely result.
Next
episode: “DABDA”
-- I dare you to figure that one out. (Please forgive the terminal
preposition.)
I And
the generations since. Nowadays people become so lost in their
electronic devices that they have little time for others. Perhaps
some use the devices as a way of shutting others out of their lives.
In any event, they may spend so much time in this private reverie
that they never learn the skills necessary to interact with others.
ii You're
thinking “There he goes again. Things were bad before that.
They're no different from what they've always been.” That may be
a bit of an overstatement, but I agree that behavior wasn't ideal in
the past. But I really think personal behavior is worse now and we,
and our predecessors, knew what was bad and we didn't flaunt our
actions and lose ourselves in them as much.
iii That
seems to be a major consideration of Presidents. Some seem more
concerned with how they'll be judged in the future than how they
perform now.
iv Of
course some things are out of our hands. We don't decide when a
flood is going to wipe us out, so we cannot act in our
self-interest. But we always do so when given the opportunity.
Those who choose an oath of poverty see it as in their interest to
do so. No one gives away his possessions without a reason. Whether
prompted by religion, guilt, or the tax codes, the giver considers
it as in his best interests to do so.
v Unless
you're a hard line fundamentalist, the two are not incompatible.
Evolution (Darwin's explanation of life's development) is a
scientific description of a means. Creationism (“Intelligent
Design”) speaks of an end. Most religious people do not view the
Bible as a scientific text and accept the idea that some of its
content is metaphorical. Many are willing to view evolution as
G-d's means of producing life on earth.
vi It's
reasonable to assume that our current state results from the
interest of our predecessors in their best-interests and in those of
their children.
vii Almost
all. There are some who, like the Lorax (in Dr. Seuss's book of the
same name) speak for others, but they, as is true of everyone else,
have chosen to do so because they consider that a good choice among
the possibilities available to them. From their perspective, it is
in their best interests. They may even believe that it is in
everyone's best interests, but their concern is really only
regarding their own views. They will act for those who don't know
better, but who, in their view, will benefit from moves designed to
better the world. Whether the ones for whom they are acting like it or not. In a way, those
who think they are idealists are actually narcissists. They're
assuaging their guilt and fooling themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.