All human actions are inherently selfish~ One will be nice to others to try and get a good reputation, make friends, or keep a good conscience~
In this respect, sewer slide is always selfish~ However, most people don't view all human actions as selfish~ Only when it harms others is it viewed as selfish~ And this ultimately differs depending on one's view of the world~ In the east, sewer slide would be viewed as selfish as it harms the stability of society and "clans" unless it is done to restore one's honor after a failure~ In the west, people care more for the individual person than wider society, so sewer slide would be viewed as selfish if it is done to harm others or is done when one has important responsibilities~
Basically, sewer slide being selfish is inherently based on one and one's culture's view of the world~ >_<
ofc, I wouldn't personally if I have responsibilities as failing and getting warded would screw up my entire life! D:
but in regards to when it's near-exclusively (not saying that I believe any of what I said or not, mods) viewed as wrong, it's usually when one does it with the hopes of harming others or proving something~
Respectfully, I want to contest the argument that "all human actions are inherently selfish". This notion comes from a flawed definition. I don't mean to offend you through this, but i genuinely believe that we need to eradicate this deeply flawed interpretation of 'selfishness' everywhere.
An obvious starting point is that this version of 'selfishness' rest on the assumption that doing anything good at all for any motivation is "selfish". One example you used, what that you even suggestion the notion that keeping a good conscience is 'selfish', which suggest that even the motivation of doing things out of personal conscience is somehow 'selfish'. I firmly argue that this line of thinking it rooted in an entirely incorrect definition of the term "selfishness".
From the examples you listed, it can be inferred you're operating on the definition that Selfishness is "Acting on any personal desire". This is just bad etymology. Personal Desires are not in themselves "selfishness", and should not be conflated. To make such a conflation, it defeats the etymological purpose of the word to begin wit. Suggesting that "acting on personal desires" is 'selfishness', is such an all-encompassing interpretation, that it leaves no room for its counterpart, 'selflessness', to exist in any meaningful way.
Selfishness does not mean simply acting on any desire you have, it must in some form come at the expense of other people. Doing good things to maintain a 'good conscience' is not selfish, because it does not come at the expense of other people in any way. So to be selfish, you must be performing actions at the expense of others to get something in return.
An etymologically correct definition of Selfishness means "performing actions at the expense of others for personal gain".
Selflessness on the other hand means "Performing actions at personal expense and without expense from others"
Now that this is all clarified, I agree that in the western society, it's structured to encourage deeply selfish behavior, and that's exactly what has contributed to severe mental health issues and suicidal ideation in much of the population. Just because that's how society is currently structured, does not at all mean it's compatible with how people actually are, no matter how much it wants to brainwash the population to think that it is. As a Species, we crave for a society designed around social reciprocity and general well-being of the whole, where we are self-fulfilled as individuals through mutual cooperation towards the common goals of the whole, while simultaneously becoming the best version of ourselves through. This is how we evolved and lived for tens of thousands of years in small hunter-gatherer clans and early tribes.
Our society as it is currently exist, is structured as a corporatocracy, where a specific class controls the economic and political fabric of society against the common interest, while amusingly wanting to claim its a "democracy". It attempts to brainwash people into thinking "this is just how people are", when the reality is that the hyper-atomization of individuals as though they are self-contained and hyper-competitive units in society, is fundamentally out of whack with the human psyche. It's as though it's a projection of psychopathy onto the general population and slapping another deeply flawed term such as "human nature" on it (human behavior is heavily relative to cultural evolution, material life and upbringing - that's an anthropological fact).
The Human Psyche demands fulfillment through collective collaboration for the good of the whole, and self-fulfillment as individual personalities. Modern Class Dictatorships hellbent to serve corporate interest only pits the ruling capitalist against the people, while trying to brainwash us to be something we aren't at every turn. It's disgusting, but with that in mind, it should be no wonder why so many people suffer from crippling depression, especially if they are a little different from an expected cookie cutter 'norm' that our corporate society wants to shove people into being.
Ultimately, we need to cultivate a culture that is based on serving the common good for all, such as through mutual aid, and encouraging acts of empathetic altruism, while providing the conditions, opportunities and services for each individual to to be fulfilled and become the best version of themselves.
Maybe I misunderstood. Finding it hard to concentrate today. But my reply is that the collective ostracised and rejected me for my whole life, so who's selfish?
Yea that's along the lines of my thinking, I call it the argument of reciprocity. A society cant just utterly fail to make a person happy and fulfilled with dignity as a person, and then demand that person to remain alive and call them "selfish" for wanting to die. It almost sounds like an abusers handbook, but for societies.
Yes, suicide affects others lives deeply. There's no real getting around that so in that way- it is selfish.
Clearly, we should avoid inflicting the pain of grief on the ones we love. Doesn't all death cause grief though- to some extent? So- parents bring children here knowing it's very likely they will witness the death of all four Grandparents, maybe a few Aunts and Uncles along the way, maybe friends and pets. One day, most likely the parents themselves before culminating in their own death.
But, that's ok? That's not selfish? Because- certain deaths we simply have to accept? Are we still not affected by them though? If the main goal is to avoid the possibility of suffering and grief by people, why are people bringing life here to begin with? When death is 100% guaranteed?
To make a comparison though, let's compare life to a job. After many years of working in a job and making great friendships, you begin to feel so stressed and exploited that it begins to affect your mental health. You try to negotiate a healthier working schedule with your bosses but, they're not having any of it. You know that, when you resign, your vast wealth of knowledge will be hard to pass on. You know your (unreasonable) workload will now fall on your colleagues (and friends) to try and cope with. You know also that they'll miss you. Maybe even resent you for leaving them in the shit. So- what do you do?
Carry on and bear it, risking a breakdown? Is it truly that unreasonable to quit? Who's really being unreasonable here? Would you do it? Carry on soldiering on? Take one for the team as it were?
Once you've had your breakdown, do you think your (obviously highly benevolent, caring) company will support you? (Irony intended.) Will your colleagues? Would it truly be so unreasonable to step down if you couldn't cope anymore?
Surely not! I imagine a lot of people would quit. Bear in mind- we agree to do a job too. We go for the interview, sign the contract, agree to the terms. Yet- we're still free to leave that- no matter how difficult it makes life for those left behind.
We didn't even get that choice in life! Our parents decided to bring us here- for better or worse. They may not even have been able to afford to feed us or look after us properly. They may have (knowingly) passed on heredity illnesses. They may be utterly without skills that are useful in this world. They may have brought us into unsafe environments where we were abused.
Yet- we now owe them and the rest of society a debt to stay alive and play/ pay by their rules? Why? Where does this sense of debt/ obligation come from? I don't imagine many suicidal people are grateful for their so-called 'gift' of life. Because, it wasn't a gift at all! It was a conscription into a highly demanding system they never agreed to be a part of in the first place!
I agree that we likely absolutely feel the emotional responsibility to not hurt others by taking our own lives but society as a whole? Sorry- no. I think my parents made a mistake birthing me into this capitalist/ consumerist culture to effectly work my arse off in order to make rich people richer! A mistake I'd be very happy to correct if only I knew it wouldn't hurt them.
Also- who are we actually benefitting by staying alive? Asides from our families and friends and a few rich people at the top? I'm not rich enough to shop utterly ethically. I suspect at least some of the products I buy or bin were made/ processed in third world countries in terrible conditions. I suspect the same would go for the majority of people here. The mass consumption by the first world is destroying the lives and environment of those in the third.
All I effectively do is consume, pollute, exploit and be exploited in return. That's not to mention the millions of other animal inhabitants on this planet which are desperately trying to survive while humans obliterate everything in sight. What have we really done that's so great for this world and, not just for other humans?
So- I agree that small scale- we likely do mean a great deal to those people around us. Larger scale though- imagine what the loss of a whole bunch of us would do to reduce our total carbon footprint? Imagine how many animals wouldn't be slaughtered to fill the bellies of all the meat eaters. I actually think fewer humans would benefit a lot of creatures. Including other humans in the long run. This planet is running out of resources.
Sorry for the big long vent. I suppose I just don't really buy it- asides from the personal impact on loved ones, as to why we should feel so obligated to stay alive and comply with a society we have no interest in being a part of. One that many of us believe is corrupt and, rotten to the core!
I completely agree with the central theme of this message. I also like how you pointed out how we owe nothing to a capitalist society that exploits and disposes of us, and destroys the environment and the third world just to serve the wealth of the capitalist class (who own the means of production of society).
The funny thing is, if you were rich enough to "shop ethically", the very question of how you amassed your wealth to begin with, would almost assuredly mean you either got your wealth directly through unethical means, or granted the money from people who got it through unethical means (such as exploitation of the third world). Any significant concentration of wealth in our imperialist capitalist world can be traced to that process.
"That a man who no longer wishes to live for himself must go on living merely as a machine for others to use is an extravagant demand"
Excellent and concise quote from Arthur Schopenhauer. Mirrors much of my own thinking on the matter.
