come now, all wants are based on needs. Wants don't come from thin air. There's a reason for them all. Hunger, wish to have more money than the guy next to you, to be better looking than the guy next to you... all benefits. Even "need to survive" is a want. And noone survives forever. You surviving for a longer time on a relative scale is a benefit. Survival is certainly selfish. Unless you're One with All... It's a general ethics gig, that wants and needs are separate. Need is excused, want is not... Hm. So in order for people to be free... everyone would have to be less powerful? I haven't thought it through very thoroughly, but it doesn't seem likely that everyone could be free and mutually beneficial, no slaves on whose shoulders to stand, yet achieve high power? Maybe this is why it is as it is. One guy is poor, the next guy is rich. But the third guy prints them play money for the previous two to use his machines (not just toys, they're often practical toys. Toys which noone could produce and operate without using slaves). This gives the third guy godlike power and keeps the lesser people useful by operating all the useful toys, so the society altogether is stronger?
Nope. I want a big LCD TV and that has no basis on my needs. I just want it! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yeah, but that's also a need. Just because something is a want, that doesn't mean it is also a need as well, even though all needs are also wants. How so? Your survival doesn't hurt anyone. So why is it selfish? Not less. Equally. That's what democracy is all about. That's screwed up. How does that make it stronger?
it stimulates you further than a boring old TV would. You'll need (want) something else after that, but if you really want it, it's got to do some good for you. Stimulation of the brain. Kinda like games. Or better information, if you'd actually put it to good use. Not to mention it'd improve your social status (not saying it's low, but whatever it is, a big screen TV would still improve it). It doesn't? There's this theory: every stable (surviving) system creates more chaos (harder to survive) generally. So every living thing lives at others' expense, in a way. More directly, I eat. Less directly, my needs (wants) will conflict with the needs of others. I do have enemies, and it's impossible to live without any. You missed the point on that one. One needn't exclude the other. If everyone's equal, they'd all be on the lesser level (provided my current theory holds). So in order to be equal, everyone'd have to be less. Simple, organized work! And a central body/person which holds the power, to make it work. If everyone does their respective roles rather than being equal (my spleen: "I want to control the work of legs!"), society can form more complex forms and function more effectively. If the society's stronger in that way, the people in central power of the system are able to distribute more power (powerful toys) to parts of the body than they'd get on their own. In short, if everyone's equal, it's everyone tending for themselves (which still wouldn't bring equality. Skills are on different levels) and no real society. The ways to make an effective system work more humane are giving the body some control over the central system (THAT's democracy) and the central body should be chosen by skill, not heritage (predetermination). It's also useful for society if the servants (still different from slaves. Slaves don't get to choose who they serve (changing citizenship), or, more importantly, what jobs they do. They serve, but it's different.) have to be taken care of by those in power. So we have juristic laws. Which are veeery complex... that's the general idea of a society. I think I heard it at school. Might be "kiddy education" or a misconception, maybe I'm mistaken. It's not like I like living by others' laws or abide the laws of every random idiot. It's not like I'm a contributing member of a society (although I'd like to contribute to mankind, if I can). And I haven't learned that much about the system. But the general concept I'm going by seems to hold.
We are all squirted out of the womb, screaming to be fed, held, changed, burped, etc. Pure selfishness of 'Me, me, me'. Babies have no altruism. As we grow older, our motivations only become more complex and varied, but still based on fullfilling ones wants and needs (both selfish). Back to the hunting wolf - it too is purely selfish. I would go as far as to say that selfishness is a requirement for life/living things. We're hardwired for it. It's not a bad thing, just a prerequisite for continuation of the individual and the species.
For a living thing to exist requires the consumption/destruction of something else. At the very least its existence occupies space/consumes resources that could be used by another. That is in the broadest sense of "self"ishness, not the narrower ethics definition.
Aivar, what if you don't want toys. What if you'd rather humanity advance instead of spinning it's wheels, producing consumer crap? As a cog in the machine that is easily replaced or even worse, a cog that is simply not needed(Africa), one is often left out of this oh-so great society.
Well, I don't consider eating to be selfish. I consider killing an animal to take his fur selfish. To eat? Not really. It's a sacrifice. An animal living in the forest is not selfish. He's part of the ecosystem. He gives and takes. That's not selfish.
true. On this case, they're left out of the society. They're not part of the system, not useful for it, gaining no use from it. And it's hard to live on their own, without being a part of a system. Especially if they have to compete against such systems (it means they're rivals to the body of the system, a much larger body than that of an individual). And, yes, being a cog of course is, for a person, much worse than being the central part. If you don't want toys, you're probably not suitable for being a worker. And some people can't afford the toys they'd want. But there's such a variety of toys/tools, pretty much everyone can find some they like. But if you don't like any, there's a place in the system for, say, teachers. But yeah, you're right in that not everyone is incorporated into a system. Some people fail to live in it, because they're not compatible. Some choose not to live in it and succeed in that choice. And the body of a society of course is different from a body of a being, eg my liver does not dream of being free. Even if parts live in a body, if the body consists of humans, they all have their own central nervous system as well. It can conflict with the more powerful system nearby. edit - as for advancing, well, scientists are more free to invent if a society supports them. So it doesn't necessarily stop advancement. And we're all free to try to come up with a system that's powerful and maybe better suitable for its parts. Maybe we will have such a society one day.
I'm sure the wolf's pray would disagree. It's another system, ecosystem. It's balanced. But some, even more than in the political system, will suffer because of it. It is selfishness of the creatures and a system which keeps it balanced.
