On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Patience <[email protected]> wrote:
> I never said everything we do can be called selfish, (read my past emails) > your taking what i said and going to the silly extreme. everything i > mentioned with involving being selfish involved interaction with others. > I've been reading all of your emails. Allow me to quote what you said: " Humans are biological entities, therefore at the core of their need > structure is three very strong drives: eat, have sex, and don't die." > And they have one thing in common, looking out for ones self. Drives font > include looking out for others > " because of our deficiency in physical strength learned to band together > to provide safety in numbers." > " But we also are competitive, which is why we are seriously still into "my > tribe v. your tribe" mindsets. At best" > " realize that food, sex, and survival are at the foundation" > At the core of all of that is that they are looking out for themselves and > their happiness ergo selfishness. > Look at why humans in general do what they do: breed, survive, succeed, > find happiness = looking out for ones self. The words in quotes are Ray's, I believe. Now, read what you said. Particularly the line that ends "ergo selfishness". You stated that the basic human drives are inherently selfish. That is why I responded with the following: > " "Selfish" is a word that is filled with moral connotations." > " In fact, the word in and of itself tends to be used as a moral judgement > more often than not." > I was trying to say that you are making a moral judgement about basic human drives...which are by nature amoral. > > Well selfishness is not a good thing. A point I never argued. > Selfish: lacking consideration for others when concerned with one’s own > personal profit or pleasure: > Read my fund manager analogy to find out why this is a problematic definition. > In general people are so engrosed with their own life they will more often > than not "lack consideration" of others. > > " a parent who places the mask on themselves first is NOT selfish." > > When you call someone happy that does not mean they are happy 100% of the > time, it just means that, that emotion is shown majority of the time > compared to other emitions. > > You're restating my argument, not presenting a new one. The fact that a person is not one thing or another 100% of the time was my response to you taking a very "black or white" stance on whether or not something could be considered selfish (or, specifically to the point, whether or not a person could be considered "selfless" based on one selfless act). You're right...the idea that a person is either one thing or another 100% of the time is silly. That's why I pointed it out. The bottom line is we disagree on what should be considered selfish. To each his own.
