Is it wrong to be selfish?

[Craigboy2]

A person who expects others to be selfless is selfish himself in that respect.

 

A person who gives the same selfless feelings to his men yet expects them to be selfless as well is on equal grounds with a person who cares only about himself and expects nothing from others, because the second person doesn't expect others to be selfless and thus is not selfish in that regard.

 

If anybody thinks that it is wrong to be selfish, then you are an oxymoron. Because nobody is truly selfless when they look down on selfish people, since they are selfish themselves in expecting others to be selfless. As in nobody in this thread.

 

So take care of #1. Every dog for himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one said it was just for them.

[Dyan]

Its selfish to make such a topic and post in it .

 

In all seriousness, I suppose it depends on what "degree" of selfishness you are/do. After all, if Americans can have "first degree murder", then surely, you can have "first degree selfishism(?)" .

 

I think its impossible to be entirely unselfish, but it seems like a nice ideal to strive for.

[Baley]

It's actually a home-video, "Mr Hands", I'm sure you could find it, very interesting from a philosophical point of view.

[WITHTEETH]

Have you ever done the pepsi-coke challenge Baley?

 

Take a sip of both, and if you could get a 24pack of the one you didn't like as much, or the choice of 1 can of the one you did like, which would you choose?

[LoneWolf16]

It's actually a home-video, "Mr Hands", I'm sure you could find it, very interesting from a philosophical point of view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny, I was unfamiliar with the term "philosophical" having a secondary usage pertaining to beastiality/homo-eroticism .

Edited April 16, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[Baley]

I drink them both regularly, it wouldn't matter much, my body hardly ever reflects on such issues, but I am inherently cheap, so I'd take 24 pack.

 

Now if there was a choice between something that tasted like coke and something that tasted like, say, a good wine.

 

I'd take the pseudo-wine can.

[Baley]

Funny, I was unfamiliar with the term "philosophical" having a secondary usage pertaining to beastiality/homo-eroticism . 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's to do with humans and their search for pleasure. You put your life at risk for that moment of clarity that may or may not come, pure unhinged pleasure. It's like a drug, you need more and more and you sink, you sink lower and lower searching for it, craving for it. That's the ideal.

 

Or you could of course close your eyes and sing La La La and hope that it will all go away and that it will stop glaring at you from inside the mirror on the wall.

[Colrom]

Main Entry: self

[LoneWolf16]

It's to do with humans and their search for pleasure. You put your life at risk for that moment of clarity that may or may not come, pure unhinged pleasure. It's like a drug, you need more and more and you sink, you sink lower and lower searching for it, craving for it. That's the ideal.

 

Or you could of course close your eyes and sing La La La and hope that it will all go away and that it will stop glaring at you from inside the mirror on the wall.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but I'd take continued life over a fleeting instance of absolute euphoria. That, and I've got no intention of being ****ed by a horse...

 

And did I miss the part where self-control, keeping those base instincts in line, became a negative thing?

[WITHTEETH]

I drink them both regularly, it wouldn't matter much, my body hardly ever reflects on such issues, but I am inherently cheap, so I'd take 24 pack.

 

Now if there was a choice between something that tasted like coke and something that tasted like, say, a good wine.

 

I'd take the pseudo-wine can.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting, you take volume over taste... atleast when it comes to soda. To indulge in to larger consumptuos pleasure vs a personal intellectual pleasure is the lower nature speaking to me.

 

But lets say it is the wine, then you are enjoying a higher level of pleasure. The tough part is, is sorting out what are your specific intellectual pleasures, we can listen to music but so can animals, but how do we know we are listening to them through intellectual ears? ok im rambling.... I'm going to leave now.

[Kaftan Barlast]

A fun thing about selfishness and altruism is this "question" that is asked to aspiring priests studying Theology at University:

 

 

"You could end world poverty and starvation right now. But if you did, you would have to live the rest of your life alone in a clay hut and you could never again listen to music, read, watch tv/film or play a game. Would you do it? Would you REALLY do it?

[Baley]

And did I miss the part where self-control, keeping those base instincts in line, became a negative thing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not natural, self-control has been built into us by society, whether that's a good or bad thing I do not know, but it's already inside, so what we can do now is either ignore it or release ourselves from it's burden, step by step of course.

 

The tough part is, is sorting out what are your specific intellectual pleasures, we can listen to music but so can animals, but how do we know we are listening to them through intellectual ears?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd say that intellectually derived pleasures are those that force us to play a more spectating part, the observer if you will.

[WITHTEETH]

A fun thing about selfishness and altruism is this "question" that is asked to aspiring priests studying Theology at University:

 

 

"You could end world poverty and starvation right now. But if you did, you would have to live the rest of your life alone in a clay hut and you could never again listen to music, read, watch tv/film or play a game. Would you do it? Would you REALLY do it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Altruism may not be the reason to do it, it maybe guilt and empathy that drive one to do this. This could give purpose to some lives. Speaking as a hedonist using utilitarianism, looking as in as a spectator, it would be the greater good/pleasure/tranquility for the greatest amount of people, if i sacrificed myself for this cause. I would be a martyr/hero which would be another reason to do it. It would be my responsibility some would say.

[LoneWolf16]

And did I miss the part where self-control, keeping those base instincts in line, became a negative thing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not natural, self-control has been built into us by society, whether that's a good or bad thing I do not know, but it's already inside, so what we can do now is either ignore it or release ourselves from it's burden, step by step of course.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...so you basically want all of us to shed our "civilized" values? You want us to take a few steps down on the evolutionary ladder? Why? That seems self-defeating...from an intellectual stand point.

Edited April 16, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[Baley]

...so you basically want all of us to shed our "civilized" values? You want us to take a few steps down on the evolutionary ladder? Why? That seems self-defeating...from an intellectual stand point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I want to experience as much pleasure as humanly possible, that's all. If that means the end of civilized existence, for me at least, then so be it.

 

I don't want to be an example, or a guide, there are much better people at doing just that, all I want is to be free and happy in my own right.

 

I've made no claims as to my own status as an intellectual, in real life it has often be assumed, I find it all far to perplexing to honest.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Baley

[LoneWolf16]

I want to experience as much pleasure as humanly possible, that's all. If that means the end of civilized existence, for me at least, then so be it.

 

I don't want to be an example, or a guide, there are much better people at doing just that, all I want is to be free and happy in my own right.

 

I've made no claims as to my own status as an intellectual, in real life it has often be assumed, I find it all far to perplexing to honest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Always been a firm believer in "to each his own" so fine by me. Just don't go hurting anybody or anything during that pursuit of pleasure and you'll get no trouble from me.

[Baley]

Hurting others, while unfortunate, is unavoidable. Humans are far too frail.

 

As I'm not a firm believer in the laws of man, though clearly dominated by them, I suppose my actions would be, if ever, halted by a more personal beat.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Baley

[Dark Moth]

I want to experience as much pleasure as humanly possible, that's all. If that means the end of civilized existence, for me at least, then so be it.

 

I don't want to be an example, or a guide, there are much better people at doing just that, all I want is to be free and happy in my own right.

 

I've made no claims as to my own status as an intellectual, in real life it has often be assumed, I find it all far to perplexing to honest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Always been a firm believer in "to each his own" so fine by me. Just don't go hurting anybody or anything during that pursuit of pleasure and you'll get no trouble from me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it's really subjective. Pleasure for one person can be different from another. How would you define pleasure, then? Instant self-gratification, or something else? (feel free not to answer, that's more of a rhetorical question)

[LoneWolf16]

I actually meant physical harm, since causing emotional agonies is, as you've said, unavoidable.

 

Really, so long as you don't plan on carving up some nice old couple with a butter knife for kicks, it's fine, and I won't be knocking down your door.

[Baley]

Pleasure to me is that feeling you get just before you ejaculate.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Baley

[LoneWolf16]

Many would agree with you.

 

Ok, most.

 

All right, everybody.

[Walsingham]

You do have a primary responsibility to look after your basic needs. After that, giving time/resources/attention to others is definitely 'good'.

 

If, however, once your basic needs are attended to, you fail to give to others, or worse still take from others, then I'd say that was the root of evil, and bad m'kay?

[Fenghuang]

Even giving to others is inherently selfish though Wals. Giving time, resources and attention to others promotes positive relationships and a web of contacts that you can likely call on for help in the future, but in a larger scale, financial aid for the disadvantaged, etc., can promote a healthier society, which also benefits you.

 

Did I mention I'm hella manipulative?

[metadigital]

No.

[Fenghuang]

Yeah I have...just not here.

 

I still don't understand why that's considered a bad thing though. If you can manipulate people to a point where you have an advantage of some sort, without them realizing you're doing so, and without harming them, I don't see anything wrong with it.