Logiclul said:
Happy Yay said:
Logiclul said:
Ugh... human nature can't be to be selfless.. read Ayn Rand if you don't understand why.
Human nature is to be selfish (and that is a good thing! selfishness is a virtue, not a sin!).
Humans are biologically engineered to be selfless, at least to a degree. We are rewarded with dopamine when we help another person.
Happy Yay: You are mistaken, so I will explain to you why so that you don't make the same mistake again.
Let us assume that everyone is selfless; let us consider such a world, and how it would function.
Everyone would be aiming to sacrifice their body for another, living in a dull and meaningless existence which exists to serve others, hoping(it isn't a conscious hope since that would be selfish, but we say hope as it is in the persons best interest for the following to happen) that one day, someone else will throw them a bone and sacrifice themselves for him.
That society could never function, so we know that humans are not inherently selfless.
Selfishness is a prerequisite for so many things. One must want to be better themselves. One must want to be happy. We could make a more extensive list, but these two umbrella phrases seem to be efficient, would you not agree?
That is silly and you know it.
There are just as many holes in an entirely selfish society. For example, if all of humanity 30,000 years ago suddenly became fully selfish, humans would go extinct in a single generation. There is no purely selfish incentive to raise and support children; for the first 8-odd years of a human's life, it is essentially a deadweight. Thus, as the modern incentive of "someone to take care of us in our old age" will not apply because people will die of sickness and the like around age 20-30, there is no longer any incentive to support children and the species would die.
I believe this is what is called a strawman argument. You have accurately stated that a fully selfless society would collapse, however you have failed to refute my point.
Let us also use your logic in other scenarios. I enjoy spicy food. Thus, I must enjoy a theoretically infinite amount of spice; if possible, I would consume blocks of pure capsaicin at every opportunity.
Your argument is very similar. As I am stating that humanity is not inherently fully selfish, you assume that I am stating that humanity is fully selfless. This is flawed.