"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live."
- Oscar Wilde
If you know me, then you know that, unlike most other people, I'm not skeeved by the concept of selfishness in the correct formulation. I think in general it gets an undeservedly bad reputation.
This Wilde quote caught my eye because I'm kind of on his side on this one. What could be more "bad" selfish than to want other people to live like you do? The entire idea is anathema to my libertarian principles.
But that got me thinking: what exactly would you call "living as one wishes to live?" If forcing others to live that way is selfish, what would Wilde's alternative be called? If living as you wish isn't selfish, what is it? And what would be the boundries?
We run into two problems: due to its bad reputation, the entire concept of selfishness is vaguely and poorly defined, studied and investigated. People spend large portions of their time thinking, studying and writing into advice columnists on how to help others or what to do for others. Upon coming across the mere mention of selfishness, however, most people balk and repell. End of conversation.
Suggest to someone that they are selfish and you've almost certainly earned a rebuke, or admonishment, if not an enemy. The conversation, if it doesn't stop entirely, tends to break down to the point of senselessness. No one, or very few, would concede to selfishness.
Suggest someone is selfless, and you've generally been considered to have heaped great praise on them, despite the fact that you've essentially said they place little value on themselves.
This dichotomy is most readily present in parents/child rearing. Parents will tell you that having a child is the most selfless thing you can do. Many times, you'll hear it told to childless couples that they are "selfish" or its too bad they wouldn't give up their selfish ways to have a child. And yet, the reasons given for having children are entirely selfish: they "wanted" children; they "wanted" someone to love; "they" felt it was the right time; they "wanted" to save their marriage.
In fact, bringing a child into the world is one of the most selfish things you can do. I'm not a huge environmentalist, but I don't think it can be refuted that more and more children aren't great for the earth. If you believe overpopulation exists or can exist, more children probably isn't the answer. If you buy that people = pollution, then people + more people = more pollution.
Having a child is at heart a continuation of your genes/lineage, which is just about the most selfish thing you can do. But even divorced from that basic natural explanation, I'm hard pressed to come up with a selfless reason to have children. Adoption, where you are "rescuing" a an existing child, is selfless, perhaps. But nothing "requires" that child you birth into the world to be brought into the world. There isn't a conveyor belt conveying children into the world - if you don't have one it won't be placed into some forgotten warehouse of ignored children. Birthing a child isn't caring for a neglected child already existing.
I'm actually hard pressed to think of any reasons having a child would be selfless. I guess rearing a child simply for a spouse, though your selfish desire to keep the spouse would have to be considered. Perhaps if you birthed a child for a third party - as in a surrogate. Hey, look here at what we've done: we've managed to come to the conclusion that people who give their kids up for adoption are the most selfless, pious people on earth!
And yet - the very suggestion that having a child is selfish would probably garner you crazy looks.
Under Wilde's formulation, choosing to have a child might or might not be selfish, but forcing others to only have so many would definitely be "bad" selfish.
Unfortunately, the first part of the equation, the part Wilde hasn't addressed, probably doesn't get answered, and probably won't, because no one wants to address the topic.
I would guess most people consider having a child to be selfless since you're giving up...well pretty much having a life. But as you point out, that's only one way to look at it.
ReplyDeleteI checked the dictionary (which defined it as: characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself). Well, that seems to contradict what Wilde says...
Or does it?
My impression of Wilde's quote (and we must remember it is only a quote and is out of context), is that an individual's natural state of being is thinking about himself. How he wants breakfast, what work he does, what hobbies he has. This isn't selfishness, this is the nature of things. You look out for you because no one else will.
So real selfishness only occurs when one's idea of life is imposed upon others. We don't call the man living in a cave selfish for not providing anything to society, but we call the individual on welfare selfish, because we pay for it. (This may not be perhaps the best example, but I hope it gives you an idea of what I'm reaching for.)
It isn't selfish of you to want to own a dog (and here I'm assuming you can care for the dog). But it is selfish of me to say you can't own a dog because (x,y,z). Because I obviously know so much better than you how you should live your life.
Selfishness is when you become so concerned with yourself that your attention is not just at yourself and your immediate surroundings, but at others and how they effect you and (continuing on) how you must change them so they fit into what you see of yourself.
Not sure any of this makes sense. My eye hurts.
Choosing oatmeal over Capt. Crunch doesn't make you selfless.
ReplyDeleteI think I would be more willing to buy the "giving up your entire life" argument if the reasons given for having a child weren't so often selfish. It's hardly selfless - IMO - to give up one self-centered activity (the free "life") for another (having a child).
And even though you give up your entire former life, life is defined lots of different ways. You aren't really giving up "life," as much as "that" life.
I agree 100% with your state of nature argument. And I think what you are saying is you don't have to add to society, but you certainly shouldn't detract from it.
I'm glad you got what I meant, cause I'm pretty sure I was a little insane by the end of that one. But yes, detracting from society (or interfering with it) is ultimately what makes you selfish. At least, that's what Wilde is saying, I think.
ReplyDelete