Is being selfish wrong ?
- Thread starter Challenger78
- Start date
You'll likely start falling apart then, slowly become unable to distinguish between self and other.
Thats what we call unhealthy or sociopathic. Such people have a very unbalanced morality, one devoid of remorse or a feeling of accountability.
define that please
"Unhealthy" or "sociopathic"?
When the family and the whole village turns their back on a teenage who had an abortion, and she ends up all on her own, people shunning her - who is "unhealthy" or "sociopathic"?
When a person has a disfiguring disease and others shun them- who is "unhealthy" or "sociopathic"?
Or when a person was involved in a political or financial or family scandal and others shun them- who is "unhealthy" or "sociopathic"?
Such people are forced into loneliness.
None of that has anything to do with selfishness.
Social norms exist in all communities. In EVERY society, those who break the norms are isolated. Because isolation is the worst punishment for a social animal.
Because they are insignificant in a society that is governed by structural adjustment.
Its like the rich family that finds it more convenient to throw away extra food than donate it to a soup kitchen.
(before i edit my post you are quoting..)
and they were left alone to take care of themselves.. agree ?
For one, it has to do with the selfishness of the society.
But sure, we can chalk it all up to "social norms".
For two, people who get isolated would die if they wouldn't become utterly selfish.
Because of the isolation, they are pushed into "unsocial" and "sociopathic" behavior - if they wish to survive, that is.
The selfishness of society is necessary for the maintenance of a society.
It is different from the selfishness of an individual
If the isolated become selfish, they will cut themselves off further.
I think their selfishness ie wanting a pluralistic society instead of acceding to a Jewish state has hurt rather than helped them.
Last edited:
survival, in an already apathic environment, will be their priority.
I'll go by the Indian experience. Either one submits, opposes or assimilates. Sometimes there are more than two options.
It depends on what you are trying to save
My point is that "sociopathic" behavior sometimes develops because others have behaved pro-society.
Like everneo is saying above, there are different causes for "sociopathic" behavior, even though on the surface they might look the same.
There are people who are born with sociopathic predispositions.
And then there are people who are made into sociopaths.
We can't put the same label on all "sociopaths", nor is society free of the responsibility for causing some people to become "sociopaths".
So is being selfish wrong? For the individual or for society?
Should there be more selfishness (a la Ayn Rand) or less?
Not to forget that the selfishness of society is carried out on the level of person-to-person contact.
If a society of 10,000 ostracizes 10 or 100 people, this isn't much. Here, society being selfish can help society.
If that same society ostracizes 1,000 people, this is significant. Here, society being selfish can be detrimental to society because they have expelled so many people the economy and social cohesion might suffer.
The ratio between the "normal" and the "ostracized" could make more difference than the nature of the transgression the ostracized committed.
I think selfishness a la Ayn Rand damages social cohesion. It makes for a dog-eat-dog world. In some aspects, this is good (e.g. competition induces better quality), but in other aspects, this is bad (e.g. people become overly materialistic and ruin the environment). Only some can partake of the better quality of products, but all suffer from the worsened environment. Also, people become alienated from one another because they are so competitive, they find little satisfaction in human relationships and instead flee into dreamworlds, virtual worlds, addictions, consumerism ... Is selfishness worth that?