The vast majority of historical evidence, when measured against an absolute scale, indicates that man is basically selfish. With no moral compass or absolutes, selfishness would be as "good" as benevolence; yet something (not a chemical reaction) within most human beings recognizes that benevolence, or caring for others is better than selfishness. In an absolute system, since selfishness and true benevolence are opposites and therefore mutually exclusive, if one is correct then the other must be wrong.
Selfish individuals live to gratify their own involuntary feelings and desires. They are actually governed by their feelings. Noah Webster's 1825 American English Dictionary defined "selfishness" as:
“The exclusive regard of a person to his own interest or happiness; or that supreme self love or self preference, which leads a person in his actions to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interests, power or happiness, without regarding the interest of others. Selfishness, in its worst or unqualified sense, is the very essence of human depravity, and stands in direct opposition to benevolence, which is the essence of the divine character. As God is love, so man in his natural state, is selfishness.”
“The exclusive regard of a person to his own interest or happiness; or that supreme self love or self preference, which leads a person in his actions to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interests, power or happiness, without regarding the interest of others. Selfishness, in its worst or unqualified sense, is the very essence of human depravity, and stands in direct opposition to benevolence, which is the essence of the divine character. As God is love, so man in his natural state, is selfishness.”
I'm a student at UF and have a couple questions for you...
ReplyDeleteBasing this question on the quoted definition from Noah Webster: You would then not consider man to be in his "natural state" when he selflessly dies for another? ie) any form of rescue, etc.?
Also, due to the position of absolutes, do you believe that if a person who lives to "gratify their own involuntary feelings and desires" completes some action that, by definition, is selfless, then in all reality it isn't selfless? How can you prove something like that?
Dear J.M.
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to contact us with your questions.
Your first question concerns a man who has [apparently] selflessly died to rescue another. If this person acted on impulse or instinct (assuming this person had not been trained to rescue others) there would be no indication that he was not still in what Noah Webster describes as a "natural state." If, however, the individual had sufficient time to accurately assess the risk to himself in attempting to rescue another and still went forward, without being compelled to do so, this would be strong evidence that he had left his "natural state" of selfishness behind.
Your second question brings in the concept of absolutes. In this instance the absolute is the fact that someone cannot be both selfish and selfless (if this is defined as living for others regardless of the cost to self) at the same time. Those two life goals are mutually exclusive - an absolute. So, if someone was living to gratify his or her own involuntary feelings or desires, that individual's action may appear selfless while it was actually to gratify a desire. That same person would have to give up his or her selfish life to be able to live selflessly as defined above. Proof of one's selfishness or selflessness could not be established by examining one act on his or her part. A sustained observation would be necessary to determine whether the person's motive had changed.
We hope these answers have been helpful and thought provoking. Again, thank you for contacting us.