The Selfish Man
January 31st, 2008
Frankly speaking, it now seems amusing to me as to how many things we as human beings take for granted without ever questioning their rationale. How many times have we ever, with open minds, asked ourselves any of these questions:
What if there is no god and the religion I believe in is nothing but a confused heap of outdated rules ? What if the sole purpose of something as sacred as my religion is just to keep me eternally unsatisfied so that I can be made to work for the "greater good of the society" in a "moral" way. When did I start taking the tenets of morality for granted and why did I never question as to why exactly murder is such a bad thing ? Why is killing in the name of religion more justified than murder for selfish interests ? Is the reason behind considering marriage so damn sacred just an artificial human weakness given birth to by a social structure that itself is arbitrary ? Why is penitence both physical (in the form of dieting, fast) and spiritual considered desirable when the body is a perfect working machinery to begin with and the concept of soul stinks to such high heavens ? Why does working for society or animals or poor people give me such a high moral ground that I at once forget the fact that the only reason that is driving me to do social good (if I am not stupid) is my own inherent selfishness at deriving satisfaction from it ? Which brings me to the point of this post.
Every sane person is selfish.
and this can be proved very easily. The reason you do any particular thing can only be one of the following:
1. You like the job.
2. You are forced to do the job.
3. You are stupid.
If you like the job then it basically means that you are running after the satisfaction that you glean by doing it. The fundamental structure of this satisfaction is the same for a scientist or a social worker or an evangelist or a freaking animal rights activist. If you are forced to do a job then you probably have something else at stake that would give you satisfaction. A software engineer who curses every minute that he spends in his stuffy cubicle is doing it because it affords him a lifestyle he desires. The saffron brigade fights the Muslim warriors on the streets of Gujarat because it gives both of them the spiritual solace of religious uplifting. Only in the case that you are stupid, do you do something completely selflessly and I have a lot of respect for such people because they might be stupid but they are not dishonest. Everyone is selfish. Its the natural law. Every sane deed is selfish. But the problem is that along with being selfish, people are curiously dishonest about it. They try to see reason where there is none. They try to look for purpose where there is zilch. Every one tries to assume a higher moral ground where there is just a vast uniform plane of ego-hurting equality. Somewhere down below, I feel that no one is so stupid so as not to realize that it is their own selfish interests that's driving everything they do but most of us are too dishonest to accept it. And I am not saying its bad as dishonesty is just a child of an arbitrary system of rules we call morality but it would be nice if for once you stopped deceiving yourself and atleast be honest about your dishonesty.
Why suddenly this discussion ? Because I have seen people taking decisions driven by the illusion of 'higher deed'. I have seen people foolishly arguing for their beliefs and trying to put down those with conflicting beliefs when they do not realize that beliefs of all forms are nothing but social conditionings and come to think of it there is no system thats completely devoid of stinking bullshit in the form of unverifiable faith. So here is my advice for those who care to take it:
Admit that you are selfish or admit that you are stupid.
Once you are clear on the point above, things would be much clearer. You would do things because you want to do them and you would love the experience. Or maybe you would do things because you are forced to but the pain would be less. You would never do things because there is a higher moral ground, a higher purpose, a selfless hero-factor to them.
I have decided to enable the comments section after all these days because I gather from some close friends that they do not think that their day was well spent unless they kicked my ass a bit :)...
Here I would like to mention that the foremost reason I removed the comments in the first place was my own weakness at getting too dependent on others' views on my views. I had started looking forward to others' critique and I had basically stopped writing for myself, something that made me hate myself...
Point well taken! To admit your vice is a virtue in itself :).
As for the post, its a fine line of argument with atheists who would certainly subscribe it, I wonder if believers can ever even imagine the thought of not believing existence of god. It is a scary thought indeed to think that in the end it all comes to naught...all that you think, do, hope.
May be somewhere we do want to be a voyeur with respect to our thoughts, the perverse pleasure in seeing us held at ransom to our joys, sorrows, envies, greed perhaps. But admittedly it certainly makes a rather dull life a tad bit interesting.
I completely agree when you say that while we talk about an ideal spartan life, we do not really want that to happen to us. Materialistic (not in the derogatory sense) pleasures are all too dear for most of us to leave them and there is nothing wrong with that.
What I am trying to get here is that an atheist becomes as deceived as a believer once he starts expecting others to think like him. I personally feel that the world needs no conscious effort towards a "better" future. Its going down the drains anyways. Nobody needs to change if he doesn't want to. There is no better point of view and all the spiritual/religious gurus from ancient antiquity to the present were nothing more than individuals with better business plans. They seem hardly different from the Bransons and the Gates of today. Religion is as crass as materialism but as necessary as the capital punishment.
But I would make a fool of myself if I expect people to think like this :), won't I ?
I agree most people, who engage in any form of social work or any other seemingly "good" activity, derive satisfaction from it and are thus, by your definition of the term, selfish. No arguments over it.
However, your definition of selfish is broader than what most other people mean when using the term. Your definition includes three categories of selfish people:
selfish-1: doing pleasant things for themselves that harm others
selfish-2: doing pleasant things for themselves that don't affect others
selfish-3: doing pleasant things for themselves that are also pleasant to others.
Totally agree that none of them should call their acts self-less for the reasons you mentioned.
However, I think selfish-2 acts are more acceptable than selfish-1 acts, and selfish-3 acts over the other two. So if the society provides a higher moral ground to them to categories 2 and 3, I don't find it wrong.
A somewhat-related article I wrote today,
http://ngupta.com/blog/2008/02/04/the-right-thing/
Few things...
It seems I haven't quiet communicated the idea that I am not using selfishness in a derogatory sense. Social work is as selfish as painting or scientific research. For me, the personal satisfaction is the same in all these cases. It is the society which labels one as higher than others. Now consider this. Consider your third option. Which category would you put a prostitute in who sells herself for money. She is doing something that is obviously pleasant to her atleast monetarily if not physically, and she is certainly doing something that is giving pleasure to others. What does society have to say about her. Would society go ahead and put her in the same class as a social worker (according to your definition). I am guessing not. And thats what I want to point out. The inherent bias, the stinking irrationality, the two faced hypocrisy that society and religion are.
I am hardly impressed if such an incoherent structure goes ahead and gives its seal of higher moral ground to social work. I have problems with labeling. It blurs the power of judgment. It presents an illusory ideal. I am fine with social work. But only to the extent that I am fine with prostitution or politics or writing or painting or asceticism. Its all the same. What I am not fine is with people trying to see more into what really is there based upon what they have been told to look, feel, and see. Thats why I have developed an acute aversion for any kind of teaching.
If you look at only the immediate impact on the people directly affected by an act, I agree prostitution is no worse than many other things that are considered good. In the same context, an act of killing a terrorist by a policeman is the same as an act of killing a citizen by a goon.
Any act, looked in isolation, is no better or worse than any other. It is only because we human beings are connected to each other (in the form of that often-despised thing called society), that some acts "become" good or bad, in terms of their long-term implications on the society. Sometimes the implications are more obvious (as in murder), sometimes more convoluted (prostitution, which affects the marriage-system, which affects other things...).
Here is what I think has happened. Humans were animals earlier. Then they realized it is in their interest to interact with each other and live together. They formed society. Many new scenarios, possibilities, conflicts arose. For smooth running of such societies and avoiding conflicts, some norms and rules came into place. And to motivate people to follow these norms, the notion of "morality" was devised. So essentially, morality is just a tool used by the society to get people to do things that may keep the society running smoothly. If people are let loose and allowed to do things as they like, society might break, and we will be back to our animal-self again. May be not as drastic, but still, we might step back significantly.
I am kind of happy that you enabled the comment feature again!!
My thoughts are almost the same as yours in this matter.
@Nitin: I agree with whatever you are saying but I think we have a fundamental difference in opinion. You are also seeing things in the light in which I am but the difference is in the last step where you show your support for the existing social structure, something which is perfectly fine by the way because its your opinion. I do not agree here with you though. My position is this:
We both agree that society has imposed these codes of morality, religion and what not for its smooth functioning. You are then saying that now that we find ourselves in such a situation, we have to function according to social expectations of good, bad, high and low so that we can all progress together. It is here that I differ. I believe we "do" not have to proceed like this. In fact we do not owe anything to the society. We cannot bring any progress in the society because progress is a relative term with arbitrary reference points. Because progress infact is defined by society. Because every direction society goes in is just the same. Have we progressed at all ? Is there a measure somewhere which tells me that we have ? Have we solved even a single problem we ever created ? Obviously people do not need to stop working if they cannot provide reasonable answers to these questions. The answers to these questions are subjective as with everything else. Thats exactly what I am trying to point out:
Its okay if you do not want to do social good, or if you do not want to fight for your religion or if you do not want to buy the next range of accessories from Dolce and Gabban or if you do not want to rise the corporate ladder or if you do not want to attain nirvana (which stinks by the way). And its not particularly special if you want to do all these things. Once you start believing that these things are good not because they are just considered good, you lose your independence of thought and you develop a kind of guilt.
I think we agree for the most part. But I just choose to believe in the stupidity and purposelessness of it all. And its not that it makes me pessimistic. It makes me extremele happy that I do not have to live by the expectations of others.
(slightly edited and posted again to make clearer)
I actually agree with you on the purposelessness of it all. But let me qualify that: intellectually, I am able to see that the universe is random and purposeless, however I have not yet been able to really bring it into my practice or actions. Right now, it is just in the theory stage, though I want to get to the stage where I could live by it.
Now that we are both using the same word, and since there is a possibility we may mean different things by it, let me write what I precisely mean by purposelessness. I think everything in the universe we see around is nothing but a bunch of
electrons (let me just use it as a reference to the smallest unit of mass/energy, of which everything else is composed of) vibrating around. Humans included. There are no objects, no actions, no birth, no death. It's all just those electrons moving here and there, being perceived differently at different times and locations. And they will keep vibrating, one way or the other, no matter what anyone does (i.e. how another set of electrons collides with the first set). Practically, it's easier for me to realize this about external objects and people. However, my understanding would be incomplete if I do not realize that I am no different, and all my acts, thoughts and emotions are also nothing but again a bunch of those electrons doing their Brownian Salsa. Also, it's relatively easy to realize the purposelessness of my actions, but harder to think so about the emotions and feelings. My senses are nothing but fine biochemical sensors connected to a fine biochemical computer (brain) which spits out responses to every external stimulus received by the perpetually active sensors. My feelings like happiness or moodiness and my thoughts are also nothing but again just a response by the computer to the stimuli it has received, not just at that instant but over a longer period of time. Likes and dislikes? How stupid to like some electrons more than others, when the only way they differ from each other is their current state of placement and movement, based on how they have been kicked by other electrons in the past. I think once I can really "realize" all this, I won't really prefer anything over anything else. I won't be attracted or attached to anything. I wouldn't feel the urge or necessity to do anything. Nothing will make me more or less happy, or angry or jealous. I will be content within myself, AT EVERY SINGLE MOMENT.
However, until I reach that stage (which has a really low probability), I am a normal worldly person whose current way of thinking/acting is reflected in my earlier comments and not in the paragraph above. I do not want to be in an intermediate position, where I am still attached to some worldly things, and yet I use the argument above to rationalize (to myself) my actions done against worldly norms. That would be hypocrisy.
How will I act if I could reach the stage of actually incorporating this thinking into my actions? At that stage, this question won't really matter to me. But I might just act like a regular human being doing things that keep the society moving smoothly, and not confusing the other worldly people by acting any different. However, anything I do at that stage will be without any attachment to anything. Without caring for their results. And, all things done with that mental makeup, whether earning money or social work or sex, will be examples of "selfless" deeds.