Ron <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-6B688A.13383801082005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <1122912356.687528.327660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote:
AE wrote:
ta wrote:
It seems important to me to distinguish between the two for
philosophical
discussions.
In my mind, "selfishness" is placing one's needs/wants/desires above
everyone else's without regard to the consequences for everyone
else.
To act in "self-interest" is simply to act in a way that makes one
feel
good. We all act in our own self-interest at all times (sometimes
the
behaviour is selfish, sometimes it's not). If it feels good, we do
it. But
different things feel good to different people.
For example, the corporate executive who decides to put his
financial
interests ahead of human health impacts by not recalling vehicles
with
exploding gas tanks is selfish (and also acting out of
self-interest).
The volunteer who spends alot of time helping people is not
altruistic -
he's acting out of self-interest (helping people makes him feel
good).
Agreed so far.
Next step would be to see when a selfish action is against one's
self-interest, and when it isn't.
I would say that acting selfishly is ultimately never in one's own
self-interest (though the confusion lies in the *perception* that an
action is actually in one's own self-interest). Using the example
above, the corporate exec *thinks* his cost/benefit analysis will yield
what is in his best interest, and that may be true from a strictly
monetary standpoint, but he is viewing his actions from a very limited
point of view, imo.
Assumes that you know the other's self interest. What if the exec has
had it with the "rat race".
What if he wants to ruin his business? What
if he would rather be doing something else, but can bring himself to
shutting down the company? Not recalling the vehichles then does become
in his best interest.
That's true, but see my reply to AE.
.
