Primordial Groove

thanks for the great replies.

Lets take this a step further. I try to find the win-win in most situations dealing with other people. In case a win-win scenario can not be found, I default to personal interest. With that in mind, is self interest a bad thing? Is there a such thing as to much self interest?

Psycho Economist

I'd say that's noble. The objectivists / scientiologists who were trying to lure you in would probably disagree...

I'm not Christian, so I'd have to say it depends on what you do with it.

Interesting one... I'm of course influenced by the notion attitude is not the same thing as intent, which is not the same thing as action. Self-interest is related to self-interested behavior, for sure... but it doesn't necessarily follow that if you're self-interested you will behave selfishly.

You could be just a little self-interested, nigh apathetic, but still hurt someone through a self-interested-by-default action: was that a case of too-much self-interest? And what of an intense feeling of self-interest that you don't act on, say you find a non-zero-sum solution to your interaction with the other person.

There are lots of different ways to poke holes in the notion that an attitude unexpressed is a Bad Thing(tm).

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Psycho Economist ]</p>

Jagged

What other primary motivator can there be *except* self-interest?

If I feel like wasting more time later I'll come back and expand on this.

David Bowden

I think acting in "self-interest" can sometimes turn against one's own best interest in the long run. It comes down to how well-informed or rational we are when we make a decision to act. Since deciding what is in our interests isn't always easy to do, especially in circumstances not conducive to rational reflection, one hopes that actually needing to commit to unilateralism would be rare, and that we would accordingly be hesitant to take that step.

I don't think "too much" self interest is the problem (we should always be aware of what's in our immediate interests, and regularly reflect on what's in our long-term interests). I think any problems with self-interest have more to do with acting on imperfect understanding - a human constant, unfortunately. If we're not rational, or if our premises are wrong, disaster or setback awaits us and unnecessary damage can be done to others.

Jumping out of a burning skyscraper might save us from cooking or suffocating, but it doesn't save us from the pavement eighty stories below. (Of course, we might decide that death is absolutely inevitable, and out of the whole range of possible deaths, *splatting* after a once-in-a-lifetime joyride is the most preferable.) Leaving an injured, immobilized person on the top floor of a collapsing apartment building whilst you dash down the fire escape to safety, on the other hand, might be entirely justified in terms of self-interest, despite their frantic pleas for help. Staying with them would turn it into a no-win situation.

Also it depends on what it means for us to "win". Sometimes we aim for the wrong things. A mugger doing his job is never in a win-win situation; for him to "win", the victim must lose and he must avoid law enforcement. No win-win compromise is possible so long as he is a mugger, and his acting in "self-interest" might lead to his incarceration - or (as he hopes) to enough money to buy a little bourbon or whatever. We ought to have contempt for that sort of self-interested act.

If a marriage suffers irreconcilable differences between the spouses, "winning" for one of them might mean successfully divorcing an incompatible person who doesn't want to divorce, or who wants to keep all the goodies and the kiddies. If the other spouse had their head screwed on straight, they would have realized that amicable divorce would have been the most winning move, but their malformed selfishness got in the way of the best outcome.

Maturity, magnanimity and perspicacity are helpful here; it would be good to review all one's virtues and principles before taking action that will definitely bring harm to another person. Ideally we would not pass up an opportunity for such careful reflection.

Sometimes (rarely) all-out self-interested action is justified, as in civil lawsuits between partners who need outside arbitration. Each will act in his/her own best interest, and trust the system to deliver justice. But hopefully some genuine attempt at reconciling or compromising will have occured before self-interested action takes place. When handled as honorably as possible, reconciliation might be possible even after unilateral action of this sort has taken place. Witness the cooperation of states and corporations with Microsoft despite the recent costly legal action. Self-interest sometimes allows adversaries and partners to be the same entities at the same time. I suppose that's one sign of a very resilient, opportunity-oriented culture.

Some scenarios really offer no win-win solutions. If a close or vital relationship (family, friend, business, community) isn't at stake (in which case, you might have chosen to lose something now to preserve something of greater value to you), then it is good to be up-front about the impossibility of cooperation / compromise, and state that you will act independently in your own interest.

This reality will disappoint all parties involved. What else is to be done, though, except submerge your own convictions or demand that the other party do the same? When the same understanding of "the greater good" isn't shared despite attempts to reconcile, people who are sure what is in their self-interest will try to dominate or leave. Unless you're specifically trying to sabotoge someone else in your own self-interest, it's best to be open about irreconcilable objectives.

A.C. Grayling's new book Meditations for the Humanist has an essay on "Compromise" which might be useful. (I heartily recommend the entire book, by the way.) Ayn Rand (*ducks behind keyboard*), when read sympathetically, promotes acting "selfishly" with a mature perspective. Her outspoken critic and political opposite, Corliss Lamont, would have agreed with her that sometimes compromise is impossible and acting alone is the only way to maintain one's integrity.

It's a matter of weighing everything; if we make it our principle to act freely and intelligently, more often than not we'll do alright despite the occasional conflict of interest.

-David

[edited to add:]

...and if you must act in unilateral self-interest, at least be nice about it...


[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: David Bowden ]</p>

ManM

Care for others.

tronvillain

I assume that the interpretation of "self-interest" that Jagged Little Pill takes potentially includes care for others. That is, because I care for others, what is in their interest will be in my interest even if there is no other benefit to me.

Jagged

Yes. I think the only true motivator we ever have is self-interest. Of course Christianity says we're rotten human beings and if we always act in self-interest we're going to be doing rotten things all the time. It's a fallacy. People without god are not any more or less "rotten" in their behavior than people with god.

The self is our only real point of reference. That doesn't mean we won't WANT to do things for others. I may want to do something for you because I sympathize with your situation, and I'm going to feel better knowing that I made the world a better place for that person.

It's much more complex than just I win or you win. That's very absolutist thinking. Life is not usually like that.

Ms. Siv

A little genetic engineering. To remove ESS knowledge from our genes.

- Sivakami.