Selfishness is bad

Its really a mater of degree, in my mind. Someone who is completely selfish is obviously not someone you want to have your back...on the other hand, someone who is completely selfless isn't going to last too long if someone doesn't help them out in return, so both are pretty ugly.

So, like just about everything, moderation is the way to go.

What he said (Jamie that is)

Thanks Sam for your brilliant comment.

Jaime, most of us are quite selfish. You as well, I am afraid. Only selfish people always expect something in return. An altruist on the other hand does not and will likely not be selfish.

So, IMHO selfishness is still always bad.

Sam, I am a she :)

Venerik, I know I'm selfish to an extent. I may be crazy, but I ain't stupid :P What I'm saying though, is that I don't consider this to be a bad thing. When I was younger, I was much less selfish. Almost to a fault--I would put my friends first in EVERYTHING (*note, I would have put family first as well, but I didn't have any). Then, one day, I learned that not everyone who I thought was a friend actually was. Likewise, I can sometimes put me first, and that is ok. Sure, I will still bend over backwards for people who I care about. But I will no longer do it to the detriment of my own person/mental health. That, in my opinion, is selfishness, but in a good way.

I love selfishly. I think that is part of the definition of love. Do I harm others by doing it? No. Am I only thinking of my feelings, and not theirs, when I do so? Absolutely :P

I think the point that I'm driving at is that people can have BOTH altruistic qualities AND selfish qualities. In fact, I think that is much more common that someone being primarily one or the other. Think of it as a spectrum--sure, there are people who fall on either extreme, but the majority of us are running in that gray area.

I have to jump on Jaime's bandwagon here.

You have to have, at minimum, enough selfishness to make yourself your #1 priority. If you selflessly give everything away, you won't have the means to take care of yourself, leaving it to others to take care of you. That's not really so selfless, is it?

Jaime, Chronos,

I think there is a difference between being completely selfless and being self protective. Of course no one should always put someone else first. Certainly not to such an extend that he can't take care of himself anymore. Everybody needs to protect himself to some extend.

But, what more does a human being really need than the bare necessities?

I think this claim is tautological — because the definition of selfishness implies too much attention to oneself.  Selfishness is not about moderation.

The claim is absolutist. The description reaffirms the absolutism. No fair moving the goalposts.

Selfishness is necessary to survival. I do not therefore construe it as "always bad". I therefore think this claim is false.

D'A

The absolutism is already present in the word itself.  Read the definition:

        devoted to or caring only for oneself;
        concerned primarily with one's own interests,
        benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others

Since humans are social creatures, most people regard such exclusive focus on oneself as too much.  Yes, caring for one's own needs is necessary for survival.  But caring only about one's own needs — i.e. selfishness — is socially unacceptable and, therefore, bad.

The judgment of "bad" in this case depends entirely on whether one accepts the standard understanding of the term "selfishness" and the tacit agreement that individualism must be tempered by socialism.  An extreme individualist (in my opinion) would declare no such social obligation.

Selfishness is bad! If one's life is marked by self fulfillment, how good of a life does he have? It does not take much for the bare necessities and no one is expected to be selfless to a point of hurting oneself.

If materialism or selfishness is the thing that drives someone, there will never be true contentment. He will find temporary contentment in the things he owns but will unknowingly be caught in a vicious cycle of always wanting more and never being content. At some point there will inevitably be a feeling of terrible emptiness.

On the other hand, selflessness leads to true contentment. It offers us an understanding of true happiness and pushes us away from this cycle of always wanting more. It binds personal relationships and brings people closer together. Ultimately, isn’t that where we all find true happiness; in the people that we love?

Yes, and though I am rarely prone to quote the Bible, didn't Paul's letter to the Corinthians summarize that quite nicely?

Love is patient, love is kind.  It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

And if you truly believe that only through helping others and not concentrating on physical luxuries can you find true contentment and happiness, then clearly that is the most selfish thing to do.

This is why I avoid these arguments most of the time. I believe that the best way to live is to be a good person. Because I fully believe it is in my own best interests, it is entirely selfish, to be a good person and to help others.

But then, I was a natural-born humanitarian raised objectivist. You have to do something to reconcile your native desire to help others with your environmental pressure not to.

But that is still not being unselfish because you have a selfish reason behind it. I guess we must first understand the motivation behind an action. True unselfishness is giving up anything you would have to gain for the betterment of another/others.

I guess it is safe to say that unselfishness is not for everyone.

Arthur, and why is the form of selfishness I described bad? That was my entire point, it is selfish and good.

Truly unselfish people do not necessarily have a goal of finding contentment and happiness for themselves when they help others.  In other words, people who expect a reward for every social interaction are selfish.

I say that's bad.

Do not necessarily, yes.

None do, no.

So, what do you say to those who believe that being as good a person as possible is in their own self-interest? And who thus act to help others, because they feel it is the best way they can spend their lives?

For the most part.

Selfishness is only bad if it's at the expense of the happiness of another.

On this one, I agree with knappster (the absolutism is present in the word itself) and disagree with Rachel (altruism may be in one's enlightened self-interest, but it is not selfish in the sense of excluding or disregarding the welfare of others).

(man, i'm tired of people claiming one thing and describing another)