Self-Seeking Selfishness:
What, really, should one make of selfishness? We all know it is a bad word, connotating some measure of disrespect for others. But like with so many words the application can get pretty muddled. If a person always thinks of themselves instead of others I guess they are selfish. If a person always thinks of their own family before others is that selfish? If one always thinks of their own religion before others is that selfish? If one always thinks of one's own race or gender first, is that selfish? If one always thinks of one's country before other countries is that selfish? Maybe that is being patriotic. Can one be good and bad at the same time?
In a competitive world if you don't think of yourself----plan and plot and run through, or over, obstacles---will you really get ahead in life? When you compete and win something, or anything over others is that being selfish? I guess you could run a race, stop a foot before the finish line and let others finish before yourself. That would certainly be unselfish, or would it just be stupid and meaningless, or just peddling an image of phony humbleness?
I suppose we are all selfish to varying degrees. How selfish we appear may have more to do with how we market our actions than any objective measurement of just how selfish we are in any particular incidents. Maybe our own status in life determines just how unselfish we can afford to be, and most likely we will leave intact those selfish actions which got us to where we are to begin with. We all know people who run over anyone in their way to get where they get and then are quite charitable, sharing some of their monetary gains with the less fortunate. Of course they may not have to run over anyone to get to point B, they might just be better at anyone with the skills it takes to get to point B. Thus selfishness gets thoroughly muddled by the realities of life, realities which, at best, we see only dimly.
Selfishness and unselfishness, in the extreme, is fairly easy to recognize. After that it is a rather obtuse concept. A person who tends to stay by him/herself a lot in order to do things exactly their own way, is that selfish? I guess it depends---in one respect they are being unselfish in that they are letting others do their own thing without any interference; on the other hand they are selfishly ensuring that they get their own way. So there you have it, such a person has covered both sides.
Democracy is another vehicle for selfishness. Those with the most talent to influence the most votes can selfishly get things to go their way. Members of any group with the most manipulative skills are essentially the ones who get to have things their own selfish way most of the time. Those with the most power and titles at a meeting get to have things their own selfish way most of the time---the old 'you can't fight city hall'. Minorities often have a rough time with democracy, often seen as self-centered selfish uncooperative misfits who ought to go the hell elsewhere if they don't like the way things are. We tend not to like minorities of any sort since they just seem to think of themselves first and carry a chip on their shoulders. I guess if they don't think of themselves first who will be thinking of them at all?
The world is full of selfish people, except you and I, and sometimes I wonder about you. One of the most clear cut examples of selfishness, held up by a huge majority of those familiar with him via the media, is Terrell Owens. There, in their eyes, is Mr. Selfishness himself. He always gets things to go his way, and if they don't all hell breaks lose. The most charitable thing his detractors can say is that, "when things are going his way he behaves himself and is charming". Myself, I see in Terrell the classic confrontation between 'fair is fair' and selfishness. Raised in strict isolation from others Terrell became either a born or taught loner. This, matched with instilled moral principles that drive an extraordinary personal energy, created a time bomb for those who would selfishly try to manipulate Terrell to their own advantage. As a genuine loner Terrell is exempt from needing outside emotional support. There is little 'if I don't do this I will meet with disapproval from others'. Told by his grandmother repeatedly that he was a 'special' person, but only in so far as he adhered to certain ethical principles,---the persona so many despise or admire was created. On top of all this is a physical presence that radiates an emotion of the moment which is nondescript but inescapable. There is little need to talk to Terrell, his face and mannerisms reflect his raw state of mind at the moment. If he smiles his whole face is a monster smile; if he is angry the glare in his eyes penetrates to the inner core of anyone to whom it is so directed; if he is sad for someone and can't help them, the tears flow unabashedly.
Are self made persons really obligated to let themselves be used by others in a manner self serving to the users? Terrell turned himself from a gangly, weak, unskilled athlete into an athlete among the best at his position with a dominating physical presence. He developed an impressive talent as a wide receiver essentially on his own, having done so on his own with his own training program, Terrell is very protective of his own little world of training. While he is willing to accept assistance and help, he rejects dictatorial interference from those he considers less knowledgeable about his position and his own body than he is. Plus he expects to be paid for his services at the same level of others performing the same service at his level of performance. This represents his relatively simplistic view of his career situation. None of this, in Terrell's mind, is negotiable. Now, is this being selfish? Personally I don't think so. In most any other profession it wouldn't even be a problem but a blessing---an employee who can perform at a high level without a lot of supervision or training is a Godsend, a virtual gold mine.
The Terrell case can be used to further examine what selfishness really is. Did Terrell get where he is by depriving others of a chance to be better than him? Did Terrell commit any crimes or create any list of victims to get to the top of his profession? If he did then he was selfish and walked over others to achieve success for himself. Is it selfish to demand 'fair is fair'? Whether what Terrell thinks is fair is really fair is quite another question entirely separate from any selfishness involved. He is either right or wrong about what is fair. Either way it has no bearing on his being selfish. The trickier question is whether Terrell is selfish in demanding the ball be thrown to him a lot. Unlike most other positions in football a wide receiver does not just react to situations that come his way during the course of the game. In fact, the fewer times the ball is thrown to a wide receiver the fewer chances a wide receiver has to build up stats. It is the stats which determine the players salary and status. So whether a player has an unselfish right to demand the ball be thrown to him more depends entirely on what happens when the ball is thrown to him compared to others. In baseball a pinch hitter who most often comes through with a hit has a logical right to demand he be sent in as a pinch hitter. If he rarely comes through with a hit and complains about not be sent in, then that is selfishness. Terrell's detractors would say that he just concentrates too much on himself in practice, in games, in his press conferences. That would be difficult to deny. But that is also the reason he is so good. His power of concentration to reach a goal is phenomenal. In his profession that ability to stay focused on personal goals is a desired quality, certainly not a quality to be defined as selfish. But, one could argue, he only cares about himself and not the team. The only thing about the team Terrell can really control is his own performance. He cannot do anyone else's job for them nor is he paid to be anyone else's nurse maid. More to the point, to the extent he spends time trying to be nursemaid to others, the lower his own level of performance, and the lower his own level of performance the less likely the team wins. It is hard to logically say that concentrating on his own job is being selfish. Last I knew, he was not hired to be any kind of coach or social companion to anyone. Professional sports, after all, is not little league.
At any rate it seems selfishness, in it's most basic sense, involves victims. If you don't share your wealth there are victims. Selfishness. If you don't share your skills so others can benefit from your talent, you are selfish. Whenever you do things in such a way that others who could benefit from your actions do not, you are selfish. Whenever we ignore the plight of others---put blinders on to the misery of others, we are selfish. Whenever we are prejudice towards others we are selfish. Whenever we plot to accomplish something by leaving another unfairly with the short end of the stick, we are selfish. Whenever we don't share things that needed to be shared in social situations we are selfish. Whenever we demand more than our share of common resources we are selfish, like the 1% of the people in this country who own 90% of the wealth in the country. Now that is selfish. When one demands the right to marry whom they choose and denies another the same right, that is selfish. Whenever one demands the right to their own religious beliefs and attempts by law to stop another from their own religious belief, that is selfish. When one demands a certain amount of public money be spent to educate their own child and is against the same amount of public money being spent to educate someone else's child, that is selfish.
Like with many words, the word selfish is too often used as some sort of vague undesirable adjective to discredit someone else. The word selfish, to have any real meaning, need be applied to specific actions. When one says Honschnivel is selfish, stupid, insincere, insensitive, etc. what do we really know about Honschnivel except that someone doesn't like him? Nothing.
Selfishness as a motivational entity is probably a crucial aspect of the evolutionary process, the proverbial survival of the fittest. Unselfishness as an ethical entity is a concept embedded in the inherent moral nature of humans. Humans alone in the animal kingdom have an inherited moral disposition. Without this moral disposition the power of humans to be destructive to other humans, other species, and the natural resources of the planet would be overpowering, and may yet be overpowering. True, humans may yet destroy a way of life so many of us have been privileged to enjoy, but like every other evolutionary catastrophe in this billions of years process, Mother Nature always wins and life goes on and upward. The only thing really at stake now, or ever has been at stake, is the current status and prevalence of species on the planet. If species continue to evolve what will humans evolve into? That is kind of mind boggling. Like with so many matters we can understand the past but not the future.
