To what extent ARE people assholes, really?
 

Here's an issue that's been bouncing around in my head for some time now. So that the question doesn't seem so totally random and pointless, I'll provide the backdrop for my thinking, but please, though I know it's provocative, don't discuss it. Discuss the actual question.

Anyway... I feel that a socially-oriented socioeconomic system could be very effective and satisfactory to most people, if correctly implemented. Capitalism tells us that, since people are greedy assholes, they'll work hard to try and improve their own condition, which is supposed to improve everyone else's condition as a byproduct (I know this is a ridiculously abstract concept, but I think everyone gets the idea and the exact meaning is unimportant right now). I think society would be better off if people could put all that effort they expend trying to help themselves into trying to help society and mankind in general instead.

Now, I know most people today don't think like this, and honestly don't give beyond half a crap about society, at least not when weighed against personal benefit. I wouldn't condemn people for this, because that's what a capitalist society encourages, and that's the kind of society most people live in (or most people that I've ever had any good amount of contact with).

My question, finally, is, to what extent are people "naturally" self-serving and greedy, and to what extent is this simply a value embedded into people by their society? As a follow-up, do you think that it would be possible to teach people to care about mankind, society, or pretty much people in general outside of the people they personally know and care for?

What you are refering to is the idea of a utopian society. The main issue with this concept can be illustrated by the movie Demolition Man. More to the point though is that when people have only the idea of trained selflesness, they have no value in themselves and will invariably end up under the power of someone who is willing to exploit that. I guess you could also reference the (sometimes half cocked) philosphy of the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind.

I think we wouldn't mind working for the good of all, but only if we too were receiving the benefit of this economic system.

Like, if I happen to get an extra $100 bucks one week, I'm more prone to share it with those around me, or donate some of it to a worthy cause. Strapped for cash and have to make my own way with the risk of not being able to pay rent or groceries? Then, not so much.

That defines the difference; myself and others I could name (whom you don't know so whateva) are nowhere NEAR that generous. Frankly, if I got an extra $100, I'd save it to spend on myself later, or possibly to make sure I never found myself without. If it's something I don't need, like an item I posess that I do not use that someone else might benefit from, then I'd possibly give it away. Money? Things that are shiny? Nope, sorry, don't happen. That's the way, unfortunately or not, depending on how you look at it, a lot of people are.

It's not so much a question of people being assholes as much as people wanting to gain.

The problem with everyone working for everyone else is that some people simply work much harder or more efficiently than others. It's hardly very fair for two people, one who works himself to the bone and one who just works a little bit, to both profit equally from 1 society that they are contributing to is it?

I doubt anyone will argue that most people aren't that generous. The question is, why?

You're being very vague. Could you elaborate on these two issues?

Well, certainly. Few people would want to help others if others aren't helping back. But, you're saying that people would help others under certain conditions?

Because there's still an instinct for survival, and for personal gain to achieve, among other things, the highest possible degree of happiness. In a society based around one raising themselves to their highest so that they may achieve this happiness, only through a control of great influence (money nowadays, food/etc. in far history) may this ever be gauranteed. And since society is so fragile, with monetary value and the value of almost everything changing on a weekly if not daily basis, the instability causes an internal caution based on the knowledge of this frailty. That internal caution is the instinct of personal gain, recently "evolved", which if brought to an "excessive" (hard to universally define) degree is called Greed.

He's saying you can't gaurantee a universal selflessness, and inevitably one person who isn't selfless will find a way to rise above others through selfishness, and thus will be able to exploit society to a ridiculous degree. I agree, as it's certainly true; it just isn't in human nature, or for that matter sentient nature (sentient as in holding any personal value of one's self), to be completely selfless, as it goes against survival. Eventually this wound its way into what has been called Social Darwinism, where certain aspects of society rising due to this will to survive, whilst more selfless cultures perish. Definetly check into this if you're still interested.

They might, but it's not gauranteed. Too fragile a society. Moreso even than our current state of affairs.

If one wants to look at the frailty of a selfless society, one should look at the ideals, execution, and failed application of communism, as this answers the OP's question perfectly. Well, almost.

However selfishness to the degree that it actually harms society is what we are experiencing now. People no longer work honestly for thier own benefit, they seek to exploit others for easy gains. I think the issue is more of an integrity problem, or lack there of. The ol' invisible hand doesn't take into account the plain old evil, crooked junk that is part everyday business.

I think we're all looking at the solcialism thing, and saying 'people are not like this, it can't work.' Zak's question is not, however, a matter of how people are, it's why they are, how they are.

Let's put a test group of children in an area isolated from the greedy commercialism of western soceity. We'll raise them using a group of people who will teach a specific agenda, e.g. some form of socialism, with paticular emphasis on sharing, generosity, and appriciativness (sp?) Think 'The Truman Show', kind of.

I submit that these children would turn our nay-saying on it's head, and would further take pride and pleasure in supporting each other. Because while they are helping others, they are likewise being shown this same consideration.

So yes, the situation determines 1)if you can develop the motivation to care about helping others at all in the first place and 2) if it is convienent (or rather, not extremely difficult) to act in line with that attitude.

Just a thought... isn't this really just a nature vs. nurture argument?

Doesn't that depend on varying issues? Like, to what this generosity is toward? For example, you'd probably be more likely to be generous to a friend than a complete stranger. And there are times you'd probably be more generous than others.

Frankly, if I had been living on a shoestring for years and years and I suddenly came into extra money somehow, I'd be greedy. Why? Because it kind've makes up for all those years of having to scrape by. Is this assholish in nature? I shouldn't believe so. As long as I don't rub someone elses faces in it, I don't think anyone would have known I felt any different about it.

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.

Constant help of others in order to progress the continuation of human society is a hive mentality that rarely works for humans due to our natural separation from all others due to our need for individuality. Under a constant sign we can find that alone most of us can survive for a long time. Most people fear death, and so they proceed to live alone. Legacies are also important to the human mind. We like to leave something behind which makes us begin to work to build ourselves up or just to have kids depending on how big your need spreads. You want every human to care for one another as best they can every day? Make it a need. Wire everyone up to something and say there is at least 80 people whom you share a mind with. You may think differently but believe me when one of you dies you all will. I will not tell you who exactly is connected to you but they may live right next to you or on the other side of the earth. But if I were you I would make sure everyone you know lives as long as possible. Suddenly that hive mentality becomes a human natural order because truly no one would want to work against anyone when the knowledge that if you end up killing someone it may get you. Though then again that plan is completely insane, but then again to most so is the thought that people can work together in such a way. So yeah that's as much as I can think up.

While I agree with your points, I do find it a little hypocritical that you seem to be attacking free speech a little bit because it lets people be assholes, while supporting it in the religious thread, and attacking third world countries because people are being punished for doing something that is definitly assholish. Maybe a clarification of exactly where you stand is in order.

Now now this is not the place to ask how a person may think. As far as you know he may be playing devil's advocate in either place. Just take the opinion as it is and do not judge it like he is running for president or something. You say you agree then do not question the speaker.

People can speak freely all they want. But if you want people to be polite and courties to one another, then you need to actually hold people to that standard. Leave speech open and free for sure, anybody can say and think whatever they like. But instead of glorifiying the mysogynist, drug-dealing gangsters or whatever else have you why not put intellectuals, poets, artists, etc on the pedistal? Gangstas are still free to act and speak as they please, but children aren't seeing them as role models any more.
Additionally, you can say the same thing but phrase it differently. That may smack of censorship, but it'd be self censorship - no enforcement. I think we can all agree that "I disagree with you, and here's why" is more conducive to civil discourse than "FUUUUUUUUCK YOU!" We do this kind of thing in our own heads all the time.
That is an incredibly dangerous position to hold.

If only you were a woman, hot, my age, single, were interested in and lived near me, I would help you make all the babies you could ever want... What?! I'm not crazy!

More to the point though, is the fact that freedom of speech has nothing to do with the respect and common decency you should show your fellows. Just in the time I have been an active member of the public I have seen a massive degradation in people giving a shit about how what they do affects others, or even themselves. Much of the idiotic assholic issues we have could be simply solved by people stopping, thinking and having the decency to admit that they were wrong, or just back down for the common good. In the same way, people who do stop, think and sometimes back down shouldn't be looked down upon, called pussies and run over.

EDIT: I also see no attack on freedom of speech. What he is saying is that people should have the decency to be aware of how their fame affects those that idolize them and act accordingly.

Heh it is simple when on the most simple of places. And when I think online forum dedicated to a comic such as this. I find it quite a simple place(note I am not saying anyone is tupid just the smallness in comparison to the whole). I will question when it affects me but down here I tend to think why people should make such a big deal over it. Though yeah if I was like that everywhere I probobly would have had a position of who I was behind in the main canidates last year.

I have no idea what that means, please spellcheck, read it out loud, edit it and then tell me what the heck that has to do with our current discussion.

Most of the things you cite have a lot to do with modern society, weakening the idea that it's an instinctual matter...

Inevitably? That seems like a strong claim. Can you back it, or at least give me an example of what you're talking about?

This seems to make sense. As social animals, though, it would make sense that we also have a strong instinct to help others. So, okay, people aren't totally selfless. To what extent are they selfless, to basically paraphrase the original question? Or would you say they're totally selfish?

Maybe after a followup. Namely: perished how? In and of themselves, or due to outside influence, conquered militarily or economically? The former says something; the latter is almost to be expected...

I'd like to think that this is true. But, do you have any information that will support this idea? Or, is this an impossible question...?

Yeah, pretty much.

This isn't really what I mean... A good way to think of it, perhaps, is like it's being a volunteer. You're not necessarily giving out material things to specific people, just being serviceful towards others in general without reward. Now, if you actually produce something physical which you sell for money (like if you're a farmer, for instance), then you're using an appropriate mindset.

Well, you're still thinking in terms of modern society. The incentive to do better, for example, is to help others out more. I think that's possible. Look at early Maoist China. Those farmers worked their asses off, because they thought they were helping their country. That's basically the kind of motivation I'm talking about, though less limited. And you hit the recognition nail on the head yourself: judging by output, not input. If you're more productive towards society than others, you can feel proud of yourself for it, and others will probably admire you too.

Sure, there'd be technological improvements. Technology is there largely to make things easier to do and/or less impossible. Why wouldn't people want to make it easier to be contributive?

With regards to gratification, I guess I have to clarify. If it's not clear from what I've written in this post already, I was talking about tangible rewards, not mental ones.

I suspect that's more a matter of what you happen to be seeing catching up with what actually is.

I mean, I'm pretty sure they didn't just invent being a jerk.

Yeeeeah here's a news flash? You don't get to dictate how people here think. This thing you have going on about insinuating how because this is a sprite comics forum it means people aren't allowed to be intelligent, or whatever you're on about, is really getting obnoxious. If you can't be bothered to respect this forum and its community then you're entirely welcome to get the fuck off of it.

Heh sorry that was meant to Mannix. I just have this tendacy to avoid the quote button. You can ignore it if you like. It has no real purpose to you.

That is true to some extent. There are several frames of reference that spring to mind, one being how people treat each other while driving, people don't care about others, I used to spend a significant amount of time on the road for work without many issues, now however in the same areas I have been nearly run off the road, hit, cut off, high beamed etc, more in the last few years than at all before that. People care about what they are doing, not how it affects others. In a less direct example, I have spent most of my working days with people around my parents' age, they have a work ethic, look out for each other and are generally good people (bad apples have been mixed in of course), whereas the younger people now beginning to mix into the work force are nearly the polar opposite, they are out for themselves and will throw their best friend under the buss for a promotion.

An even better example is this:
This is a discussion forum, you are meant to respond in a manner pertaining to the topic on hand and in such a way that it deals with the other people reading this thread.

And I did to begin with. Then I posted again in response to someone. Then Mannix responded to that so it seemed right I respond back. I apologize if it annoyed you in any way, but I have no way of taking it back as of now since it already has been read by you.

I'm sorry once more. I really didn't mean anything by it. I'll try take this in a form of stride to know better if that was the goal of the moderation since I haven't been banned yet (though I am not leaving that out as if it won't happen) but before I strike off any more I'll just leave this thread in particular.

Try not to worry about it too much, kid. They're basically doing exactly what I'm talking about - teaching/moulding through example. Youngsters can't know what's right if nobody tells them any better. Action now is what's required.

Also, I didn't mean for my post to sound racist. What I do when I make a post is lay out the framework, then flesh it out. My ride to work rang the doorbell before I could finish so I just hit post. Brittney Spears, "KFed," and Paris Hilton are the kind of people that should live and die in obscurity.

On topic, there's a documentary maker by the name of Adam Curtis that works for the BBC that has explored this theme extensively. Essentially, the development of Consumerism and Cold War strategic theory simplified our view of humanity and the world around us. It's hard for me to sumarize about 10 hours of film in a paragraph, but essentially people are (in this view) automotons incapable of nuance or self-control/personal responsibility. People only act for their own personal interest and indeed should be incouraged to do so because denying one's nature is dangerous and leads to all sorts of societal problems (murder, rape, riot, economic collapse, etc).

His discussion of how this applies to politics is semi off-topic and is a great deal more typing for myself. Having seen all 3 of his major films though I can tell you the Wikipedia entries are fairly accurate and provide a decent summarization. If you don't want to sit through that much film (which are all fascinating as hell, btw) just read them. Highly thought provoking.

Here They Are.

And this view, as I gather from the Wiki, is extremely far from trustworthy. It was basically developed by a paranoid man, and its models only predicted anything correct when people agreed beforehand to behave as selfishly as possible, or when the people were economists or psychopaths (most amusing, I must say).

There are a number of suggestions that people are being engineered to act this way (because it's so predictable, I guess), which does aid the idea that people aren't really that selfish without this societal influence, although it doesn't necessarily prove it.

John Nash (the guy from A Beautiful Mind) was/is a paranoid schizophrenic and has, in his later years, recanted the idea as naively simplistic. It's probably the single most influential idea of the last century, unfortunately, as it's been applied to all sorts of things even Nash didn't envision - economics and marketing being the two chief examples.

I'll say it again though, everybody should at least take a cursory glance at these things. Even if you think it's all horse shit, it at least provides a well reasoned point of view that isn't much discussed in the mainstream these days.