Continuing on the last chunk of ruminations, I still want to try to find out if there is anything that a human does completely selflessly. If we hope to find selflessness, something that I doubt, we have to look towards closer human relationships, maybe even blood relations or very close friendships. For now I will look at social welfare.
The concept of selflessness when applied to unrelated humans runs contrary to everything that evolution stands for. Man like every other animal is an outcome of a bloody battle for survival through the ages. Society has acted as a mellowing influence but the basic human tendencies of fierce competitiveness and a pugilistic attitude once the question of survival arises remain thinly hidden. I am frequently surprised to see the number of social workers because its not something that I expect logically to happen since it appears to be a contradiction in the natural working of things. And I start wondering as to how many of them are driven by guilt. A guilt which hammers in the realization of the gap between haves and have nots and mixes it up with a social expectation of an ideal state where this gap is narrowed. I am not accusing anyone of anything but I just want to ask a few questions. Why humans as a specie should try to narrow this gap ? Is it because we 'have' the capability or atleast the illusion of the capability ? Why can't we take it as the natural working of things where 'survival of the fittest' would finally takes charge of affairs ? I just want people to ask one question to themselves. When you see the picture of a poor child suffering from malnutrition, do you feel a sense of deep, overwhelming sorrow unaccompanied by any other emotions or is that emotion somewhere mixed with the feeling of relief that you never had to go through all this ? If its the latter, then your next reaction probably is the feeling that this is an unfair world where on one hand some people can live such an easy life, of which you are a part, while on the other, some have to undergo such hardships. And this is precisely where I feel that guilt sneaks in unannounced. Guilt is a derogatory word but I do not mean to use it that way because our notions of good and bad seem overwhelmingly arbitrary. What I am pointing out is that if the reason for social welfare is self-guilt, then its hardly selfless in the strict sense of the word. I am not demeaning anything or speaking against anyone because I realize the stupid ego-trip that really is, but I just wanted to make an observation for a strictly academic purpose.
The concept of selflessness when applied to unrelated humans runs contrary to everything that evolution stands for. Man like every other animal is an outcome of a bloody battle for survival through the ages. Society has acted as a mellowing influence but the basic human tendencies of fierce competitiveness and a pugilistic attitude once the question of survival arises remain thinly hidden. I am frequently surprised to see the number of social workers because its not something that I expect logically to happen since it appears to be a contradiction in the natural working of things. And I start wondering as to how many of them are driven by guilt. A guilt which hammers in the realization of the gap between haves and have nots and mixes it up with a social expectation of an ideal state where this gap is narrowed. I am not accusing anyone of anything but I just want to ask a few questions. Why humans as a specie should try to narrow this gap ? Is it because we 'have' the capability or atleast the illusion of the capability ? Why can't we take it as the natural working of things where 'survival of the fittest' would finally takes charge of affairs ? I just want people to ask one question to themselves. When you see the picture of a poor child suffering from malnutrition, do you feel a sense of deep, overwhelming sorrow unaccompanied by any other emotions or is that emotion somewhere mixed with the feeling of relief that you never had to go through all this ? If its the latter, then your next reaction probably is the feeling that this is an unfair world where on one hand some people can live such an easy life, of which you are a part, while on the other, some have to undergo such hardships. And this is precisely where I feel that guilt sneaks in unannounced. Guilt is a derogatory word but I do not mean to use it that way because our notions of good and bad seem overwhelmingly arbitrary. What I am pointing out is that if the reason for social welfare is self-guilt, then its hardly selfless in the strict sense of the word. I am not demeaning anything or speaking against anyone because I realize the stupid ego-trip that really is, but I just wanted to make an observation for a strictly academic purpose.
12 comments:
Ok!. I am not a very big believer of selftless acts either, but an argument always lingers on my mind. First let us get to the basics. When do you call an act 'selfless'? There can be two criteria for it. 1. By judging it on the basis of intention. and 2. By judging it on the basis of outcome. Now consider 3 cases, a) an act being selfless if its based on selfless intention, then there are ample example where people do things not thinking about themselves, and that if they will derive happiness from the deed, but just do the deed in a self less manner, although it might be very true that the final outcome was self happiness. Now b) if you consider an act to be selfless of the outcome was selfless (which i dont think would be right, but for the sake of argument), then it is possible that a person does a thing to benefit himself but the outcome was against his desires. The third and probably the most strict definition would be a deed where the intention was selfless and the act generated results that was selfless. This is tricky, as believers of no-selfless-deed-exists would argue that any painful outcome, inspite of selfless intention, can still lead to happiness or satisfaction, making the deed selfish. But on the other hand, this can be put into selfless deeds, as the intention was also selfless and the outcome was painful. Maybe there there should be another word between selfless and selfish.
Babua,
1) You could've peacefully written an entire post out of that comment. It would be nice to have a post by you on this topic, especially considering the amount of thought that you have given to the topic. Does 'altruistic' sound between selfless and selfish?
2) As long as an act affects/involves more than one person, I can't imagine it being selfless. The mere conviction that `we will not be deriving any perceivable benefit out of an act (with/without some one else benefitting from it)' ends up affecting our ego.
I doubt if intellectual masturbation is going to get us anywhere on this topic.
I wonder if there is any person who can be called totally selfless. For anyone to do a deed to be done without thinking of the intention as well as the effect is going to be near impossible. Besides isn't it our vices that make us humans? Humans are meant to feel and if you stop doing that then you might as well be as numb as a lifeless corpse.
But I totally agree with you that people should refrain from calling any act selfless unless proved otherwise.
Assuming Descartes was right, can any act of ours that the we think over be selfless?
a lot of discussion has already taken place and I seem to be out of ideas... anyways,
@Rasia: You are always such a sporting arguer that I do not even feel like trying to present ideas to refute you... The best thing I like about you and your arguments is that you seem to be coldly distant from them in the sense that you do not seem to put a lot at stake for your arguments... You probably would care only as much when you are proven right as when you are proven wrong which just kills any incentive for me to try to refute you. Your arguments in this case are intelligent and if given by anyone else, I would have tried giving counter-points, but I know that you do not care either ways :)...
@Gunti: Thats the whole point of intellectual masturbation. Has it ever led us anywhere :) ?
@Anurup: You again raise a very important point which, I feel, is not given its due importance always. The importance of our vices in our lives. I too seem to think that they are an integral part of the definition of human beings...
@Gunti: I am still at loss at explaining close blood relations like Mother-child.
Mother-child relation is not a feature restricted to humans, it's common for most mammals (remember the Kruger Park video?) Not much of thought involved in it, it seems to be no more than a survival thing (Dawkins sense) that we over-analyze and thereby put one half of the population on a non-existent pedestal. May be we should compare an act for it's equivalent in the rest of the mammal world before we call it self-less or selfish, even then nothing stops us from making a mess by trying to impose a moral code onto the animal world :)
On the topic of social welfare, I would like to believe that the ideal social worker perspective is the following: the huge (perhaps even growing) differences that exist (social, economic, political) are threats that would lead to large-scale instability (social, economic, or political). This instability is fatal for us as a race, almost like a time bomb ticking towards a major explosion- a war, an uprising; a doomsday where nobody will be spared. Social work perhaps tries to bridge these gaps and prevent this instability that might appear in the long run (say on the scale of one or two generations). In that sense,my guess is that social work "preserves" and "balances" on the global scale.
Evolution does talk about survival of the fittest, and I still find it hard to fit this in to the social work framework. But there are species that co-operate for the good of the species as a whole rather than the individual when there is a threat to their existence. Hopefully humans are similar.
I dont think any act is purely selfless, and I think selflessness and selfishness are terms that are too loaded with "good" and "bad" (for most people anyway).I suppose selflessness is the balance we strike between our benifits and the +/- effects they have on others concerned. We should have a perspective on what is happening to others around us, but "I am selfless" should never be a claim to fame.
Sorry for the blog-sized comment. I have never really left comments before, only written blog-posts. I need more practice...and meanwhile, I even finished my coffee :P
@Vadrevu: No social worker does social work because he thinks that social and economic disparity would one day doom the world. I do not care to prove it because I think its only too apparent. Global balance might be an effect of social work (which I think its not) but its never its intention.
As to your second para, I suggest you read 'The selfish gene' by Richard Dawkins where he explains apparent selfless behaviour in other species.
Now that you have indeed mentioned Richard Dawkins, is that the source for your atheistic leanings and cynicism in general ? :)
I must agree I find his writing very interesting, certainly has the power to shake people out of their thought stagnancy. Every believer and non believer must read his books at least once, just so that you take back with you some questions that you may not find answers to but just to end up being glad that you asked them.
@Ankit: This seems to be a lot along the lines of 'Atlas shrugged' by ayn rand...esp john galt's speech..is that so?
@Babaji: Your 3rd definition i would like to say is under ur first one...To explain, take the example of tooth ache..i have noticed a lot of ppl(including me:))gnashing their teeth despite the pain coz its sort of what you can call "sweet pain" as in you like that pain...although bad analogy but i guess even if outcome was painful for a selfless deed, the person might still derive some satisfactioin out of it.
decided to enable comments again, eh? :) Can see its been a long time!
On the motivation of "social workers" - What if you feel pain when you see someone in pain? What if you feel happy if you can relieve some of that pain (and thus your own)?
Maybe not everyone feels that way about everything - as kids didn't we laugh when someone slipped or fell? But probably everyone has experienced it - the wish or desire to be able to "help" when someone you dearly love is ill or suffering. What if you love more than a few people?
Indeed, no act is selfless. Guess people do it because it is so intricately linked to their happiness.
Post a Comment