I believe its the classic actor/observer scenario. Ones own problems are seen as the fault of the environment they live in and ones successes are seen as due to themself. When considering the problems and successes of other people the situation is reversed, mostly due to what is seen as changing between different situations and ones unique access to ones own thoughts. Therefore you feel like you both deserve and need what you earn more than any thing else.
Also their is simply genetic selection as mentioned above, not so much of individuals of mental characteristics but of societies that promote these characteristics.
Really whenever we only have full access to our own thoughts there is going to be suspicion and mistrust of others, and a sense of ones own importance and selfishness will prosper.

See, the thing with Selflessness is that in the end it's still a selfish act. In a world where selfishness is the law of the land, the selfless get raised up as some sort of saint. The recognition of giving to others causes little happiness endorphins to go off in your brain.

Basically, selfless people imho are just drug addicted to the happy endorphins. They give simply so they can feel good by having people pat them on the back and shake their hand. The rare person that is selfless in the shadows is the person I admire.

I've also noticed that the people who preach the utopian societal beliefs are generally the ones who would get more than they give. The people who are out there working their asses off, and thusly contributing to society, are the ones doing it for self. Sure, they'll work hard to benefit humanity, but they'll at least admit to some form of selfish reason as the key drive.

With humanity being as self-driven and competitive as it is, a pure utopian society where one gives without even thought of self is impossible. Human nature is to look after oneself, and no matter how much you think you can get beyond your nature, when the chips are down you will look after yourself first. It's instinctive. And that instinct is why we can never be truly selfless, nor commit to a utopian society.

And good riddance to it I say. A world where everyone is equal? Where's the incentive to exceed? to excel beyond the normal person and become something 'better'. It is that chance to be recognized as something above the cut that makes us strive to be the best. To do the things we do. Because at the end of the day, we evaluate our own self-worth by the average output we see around us.

Yeah... I know... it's a bitter outlook. But it's what I've seen. The "career giver" is usually in the spotlight basking in their selfless glory. Maybe not in TV, but in their own little community. All the same to me.

There is no such thing as a selfless act. By saying that they get a good feeling, they obtain something from the situation. Therefore, their selfishness is in the fact that they like to feel good by making other people feel good. It just depends on the way they portray themselves to other people to see if those other people would consider them a selfish/selfless person.

I think that's what it comes down to: perspective.

The above 2 posts refer to what is called the "moral identity reward". Even with no recognition from others people like to do good acts so they can see themselves as a good person. From this comes self-satisifaction which is an immensly powerful good feeling.
We can still question, however, why some people value such things above others who value material wealth more.

That's pretty much what Kant said. There is no such thing as a completely selfless act. I knew studying for my philosophy exam would pay off!

More on-topically, though, it's always based on perspective. Not only does the person acting have an interpretation, so does anyone else nearby. What is perfectly rational and logical to one person can be viewed as an act of selfishness by another. I've noticed that whenever I try to help people at work, for example, most people take it as me helping, whereas my boss, whom I detest, sees it as me showing off and trying to undermine his authority. I doubt that he considers himself an ass, but I sure as hell do.

EDIT : Damnable ninja's, the Kant thing was in regards to what Rai said.

Though the thing to remember about Kant though, is that he was bat-shit insane.
I remember reading about this set of South American tribes discovered about 2000. A set of about 5 small tribes living in close proximity to each other. Within each tribe they all worked for each other but competed fiercly with the other tribes despite tribesmember intermarrying constantly rendering tribe members indistinguishable and them all living with a few km of each other. The need for small groups to which one can belong, and outsiders with which to compete, I feel is very important to human identity. An odd tension of competition and belonging is needed. I remember a psychological study where a room full of people were asked to yell out answers to very easy questions (like which number is higher 2 or 1). By themselves subjects answered questions correctly but in a room full of people answering incorrectly about 85% of subjects followed suit thus showing the importance of belonging and conformity.
Competition is also important, however, in creation of identity- as different to others- and in advancing oneself.

The line between genius and insanity is quite thin. Some of the greatest of theorists, philosophers, and idealists were either borderline insane, or full blown psychotic. By being outside the mental norm of linear thinking, you are able to grasp a finer perspective on some of the more abstract idealogies of life.

For the most part, too, insanity is judged as being outside of normality. Take Alexander Graham Bell, for example. Despite inventing the telephone, most people thought he was loony because he liked to take walks in the rain. He felt that it helped him clear his mind. Many people do odd things because they believe that it helps them. The same thing goes for assholes, in my mind. I doubt anyone wakes up and thinks to themselves "Oh man, I'm going to be SUCH an ass today." From their perspective, what they are doing is helping either themselves or others in some form or another. There's also the being an ass for the sake of a joke or two, which most people do intentionally (I think Conan O'Brien mentions that he's an ass at least once a week) but that's hardly the same as being a full-blown pain in the ass.

Wait... taking walks in the rain makes me -loony-?

*sigh*

Yeah, I'll agree. Than again, I have met people who -do- act like an ass for no other sake than to be an ass. Actually, they say it's to toughen people up to the reality that there is no such thing as true kindness.

Meh. I think I'm bitter because everyone I know is bitter...

Anywho.

I personally like this semi-selfish society because technological advancement would be impossible in a selfless world. What need would we have for technological improvements? Most are due to war, a selfish act if there ever was one, or a personal need for a higher level of comfort. In a utopian world, we would probably still be using abacii for math, if even that. And a society where I can not blow up zombies with a rocket launcher at 1024x780 resolution is a world I dare not think about.

I think people are assholes to the extent that society allows/encourages. To paraphrase R.E. Howard 'barbarians are generally more polite than civilized man because the barbarian knows he can have his skull knocked in for offending somebody." In America, not only do we have a bunch of laws and police protecting people from that kind of thing, almost all of our social role models - athletes, actors, politicians - are selfish, loud, obnoxious, assholes. How can we expect children being raised in an environment where bad behaviour is exhalted and rewarded to act differently? If we want people to act better, we need to not let them get away with bullshit. And we sure as shit need to stop rewarding people for it.