Selfishness is a frequently used concept. A concept is not easy to define because people often use it. As a research, how to define it scientifically to summarize all its essential characteristics? American scholar Wilson even used "selfishness" to describe the most basic unit of life-gene in his book The New Synthesis. According to Wilson's concept of selfishness, one grass competes with another for nutrients, birds eat insects, cats eat mice, one dog competes with another dog for bones, and people eat pork and grain, all of which are manifestations of selfishness. Although Wilson also admitted that genes are neither unconscious nor emotional. In fact, Wilson called the "objective behavior" that any organism benefits itself at the expense of other organisms "selfish". In what sense Wilson uses the concept of selfishness, that is his own business. But for the convenience of research, I only use the concept of selfishness in the relationship between people in human society.

As one of the attributes of human beings, selfishness, as a broad and complex social phenomenon, can be manifested not only as objective behavior, but also as subjective consciousness, concept and motivation. Because of the unity of human consciousness and behavior, selfishness can refer to both behavior and concept; Because people's behavior and consciousness may be out of touch, may be separated from time and space, or may appear in the form of contradiction, so they can refer to behavior or concept alone. So, in terms of subjective consciousness, what is the definition of selfishness? Is it better to define selfishness in terms of objective behavior?

Some people focus on the definition of selfishness from the objective behavior and its effect, and think that "selfishness refers to the behavior that people satisfy their own interests at the expense of others and society." In other words, selfishness is an objective behavior that harms others and benefits others. I call this definition "selfish objective behavior definition."

This definition is in line with people's habit of paying attention to the effect of behavior in moral evaluation. Many people use selfish concepts in the sense of harming others and benefiting themselves on many occasions. However, the definition is not simple.

First of all, according to the definition, only when people really show the behavior of harming others and benefiting themselves can they be called selfishness. It's not selfish if people don't sacrifice others. However, as we all know, just as people can have criminal consciousness and motivation, but they don't necessarily show the actual criminal behavior, people have the consciousness of harming others and benefiting themselves, and they don't necessarily show the behavior of harming others and benefiting themselves. This is because: first, there is still a process for the generation of motivation and consciousness-guided behavior. Before the process is completed, one kind of motivation and consciousness may have changed or disappeared and be replaced by another kind of consciousness and motivation; Two, a kind of motivation, consciousness may still exist, but due to the constraints of the external environment, or because of the inhibition of another kind of consciousness and motivation, this kind of consciousness and motivation has not guided the production of behavior for the time being and lurks down. So people don't show the behavior of harming others and benefiting themselves, but this doesn't mean that there must be no consciousness and motivation of harming others and benefiting themselves in his mind. Because the definition of objective behavior does not include this situation, the explanation of some phenomena is stiff and far-fetched. For example, someone is not selfish in one thing, but selfish in another. According to the definition of objective behavior, it can only be explained as follows: he changed from selflessness to selfishness. But in fact, there are two situations here: first, this change in objective behavior is the result of corresponding changes in motivation and consciousness; Second, although the behavior has changed, the motivation has not changed. Motivation is primitive and persistent. It is reasonable to explain the first situation according to the definition of objective behavior, but it is obviously inappropriate to explain the second situation.

Secondly, if the concept of selfishness is used in the strict sense of "harming others and benefiting themselves", then when someone fails to help or avoid losing everything, this behavior cannot be called selfishness. Because the actor neither harms others nor benefits himself. In fact, people call this kind of behavior selfish without exception, and such actors are called selfish people.

Especially important, when the objective effect of human behavior is self-interest and benefit (reciprocity)

At that time, were people selfish? According to the definition of objective behavior, that can't be called selfishness.

However, we know that the objective behavior effect of self-serving others is often the result of the subjective motivation of "for me" (of course, there are other situations). When someone conducts behaviors that are objectively beneficial to others and society, "altruists" are likely to get corresponding returns from others and society. "His good behavior is wily, essentially for the benefit of himself and his relatives." ② Ideas and motives are selfish. Because it is "for the benefit of himself and his relatives", if his good behavior (altruism) fails to make him get the corresponding reward from the other party, or is less than the corresponding reward he thinks, then it can be expected that his good behavior will disappear or decrease, and if he can get the corresponding reward, his good behavior will continue to perform. This kind of behavior, although it is really inconvenient to be called selfish in the static sense only from the behavioral effect (self-interest), is called selfish in the dynamic sense and subjective consciousness and motivation.

From this point of view, the definition of selfishness only from the aspect of objective behavior, although considering the unity of behavioral motives, has considerable limitations because it does not pay attention to the possibility of contradiction and disconnection between ideas and behaviors, and does not summarize all the connotations of people's use of selfishness.

How to define selfishness from subjective consciousness and motivation?

There is no doubt that there is a basis for defining selfishness from subjective consciousness: first, only people have distinct consciousness (in a relative sense, of course), so defining selfishness from subjective consciousness can distinguish human selfishness from the selfishness (instinct) of other animals. Moreover, this is also in line with my purpose of studying selfishness only in people; Second, define selfishness from subjective consciousness and motivation, and understand selfishness and people from a dynamic perspective, thus avoiding the limitations of the definition of objective behavior; 3. Motivation and consciousness are more powerful than behavior itself. The logic is: under normal circumstances, people's behavior is always conscious. If we can really eliminate consciousness and motivation, we can also eliminate behavior itself, but eliminating behavior does not mean eliminating consciousness and motivation. As long as motivation and consciousness exist, it can reproduce the behavior that was eliminated.

So I define selfishness as: when a person has an interest relationship with others and society, the first thing to consider is his own interests. When a person thinks that he is not in contradiction with the interests of others, this motive of considering his own interests can guide the objective behavior of benefiting others and benefiting himself; When people think that their own interests are in contradiction with those of others and society, the motivation to consider their own interests is manifested in the behavior of safeguarding and developing their own interests at the expense of others and society.

Such a selfish definition may still not summarize all the essential characteristics of people using this concept. But one thing is certain: we must grasp the concept of selfishness from multiple angles, at multiple levels and dynamically. Therefore, it is necessary to study people's subjective consciousness, motivation and objective behavior together.

Second, the relativity of selfishness.

One of the relative meanings of selfishness is that selfishness is relatively selfless.

There is no selflessness without selfishness, and vice versa.

Some thinkers believe that (4) the only principle and law that governs people to deal with the interests of others and society is "egoism" (selfishness). When people deal with the interests of others and society, there is only one concept, consciousness and motivation, that is, "for themselves", just as the river will not flow back to the source, and people will not sacrifice their own happiness for the happiness of others.

Even if someone objectively shows behaviors that are beneficial to others and society, even at the expense of his own life, it is only to satisfy his sympathy and the impulse to cherish honor (because in the eyes of practitioners, the value of his honor is greater than the value of life. ) This is, this is still "for yourself". (selfish)

In earlier years, some young people in our country discussed the value of life, and the famous Pan Xiao also talked about selfishness. He believes that even if he is called a noble and selfless person, he is only "subjectively for himself and objectively for others." The objective effect of a person's behavior may be beneficial to others and society, but subjectively, he always starts from himself and satisfies his wishes, impulses, emotions and values, so he can only be "selfish".

The above viewpoint can be called "pure selfishness".

According to the logic of pure selfishness, anyone's moral behavior only has the difference of objective effect, but there is no essential difference of subjective motivation. "For others, for the public" only has the meaning of objective effect. As a concept and consciousness, it does not exist in essence.

It must be affirmed that any person's moral behavior, even all other behaviors, as long as it is not the result of external forces, as long as there is the actor's own conscious choice, even if it is the subconscious function, then the behavior must always conform to the actor's own wishes, desires, emotions and values, otherwise, the behavior itself is incredible. Only in this sense can we say that no matter how I express any behavior, my subjective purpose as an actor will always be "for me". Here, "for me" and "for me" behave like Tathagata's palm and the Monkey King, who is omnipotent. No matter how severe the Monkey King is, he can't jump out of the palm of Tathagata's hand.

Only at this point, the purely selfish view is quite profound.

However, although pure selfishness pays attention to and emphasizes that anyone's moral behavior must conform to the actor's own wishes, desires, emotions and values, it is unacceptable that pure selfishness ignores the differences in motivation and consciousness behind moral behavior. It cannot convincingly explain the following phenomena: A. In order to get other people's money for my own enjoyment, I killed someone and took other people's money, which was for me.

B, "I" in order to make money, on the premise of not cheating, I provided some goods or services for others, and then made money, which is me.

C "I" believe that it is valuable, noble and glorious for people to serve the interests of the country, nation, society and others. So "I" chose to sacrifice myself to benefit the country, the nation, the society and others. Because this choice is in line with "I"

Then, the previous values are also "for me".

As far as the objective social effects are concerned, there are obvious differences among the three types of behaviors, A, B and C, which I am afraid there is no objection.

What about subjective consciousness and motivation? The concepts and motives behind the three types of behaviors are consistent with the desire, will, emotion and values of the actor "I". The question is, what's the difference? There is a difference! Behind Class A behavior, there is not only the conceptual motivation of "for me", but also the concept of "for me, you can even sacrifice the interests of others"; Class b behavior also has the concept of "for me", but at the same time, it has the concept of "I want to take care of the interests of others", although it is likely that taking care of the interests of others is only a means to satisfy my own interests; What about the subjective consciousness behind class C behavior? "I think this is the right, glorious and noble thing to do, so I did it." I did it in line with my values, so it was also for me. However, there is a sense of "serving the interests of the country, the nation, society and others" in the value concept of "I". Here, only the consciousness of "serving the interests of the country, nation, society and others" conforms to the value concept of "I", otherwise, I will not do so. Therefore, in "I do this in line with my values"

Consciously, it includes "serving the interests of the country, nation, society and others"

The concept of. There is no consciousness of "I can sacrifice" behind both A and B behaviors.

From this point of view, the subjective consciousness and motivation behind the three types of behaviors are different. In this case, if the concepts and motives behind the three types of behaviors are collectively called "selfishness" (egoism), it is not convenient to distinguish three different concepts and motives. This is the biggest flaw of pure selfishness, and it is also the key point that people don't accept.

In order to distinguish the three kinds of behaviors and the concepts and motives behind them not only in the social effects of behaviors, but also in the concepts and motives, I think we might as well call A and B selfish (in which A can also be called vicious selfishness and B can be called reasonable selfishness, which will be discussed later). ) class c is selfless.

Studying selfishness will naturally lead to selflessness. This article does not intend to study selflessness in detail, but it is inevitable to mention it.

If selfishness is equated with egoism, then selflessness can be equated with "altruism" (or "unconditional altruism" to distinguish formal altruism from essential egoism). Selflessness, as a concept, motivation and behavior, means "sacrificing one's own interests until one's life in order to benefit others unilaterally." When an altruist performs altruistic behavior, he "has no intention of asking for the same return, not deliberately doing so in order to get the corresponding reward from the other party." His altruistic behavior and ideas are relatively unaffected by social rewards and punishments. "(5) the explanation of altruism here is completely borrowed from the description of American scholar Wilson. Although it may still be inaccurate, as an opposing concept, it is quite useful to distinguish it from egoism.

People's interests have two poles, one is personal interests, and the other is the interests of all mankind. So selfishness and selflessness can be divided into two poles. One pole is the idea and behavior for the benefit of a single person, which can be called "absolute selfishness"; The other pole is the behavior and concept that benefits all mankind, which can be called "absolute selflessness". In the "middle zone" between the two poles, those thoughts and actions for the benefit of friends, families, groups, factions, places, nationalities and countries can be called selflessness and selfishness, depending on what kind of interest relationship is used as a reference. Just as public and private are relative, there are grades, so is selfishness, which is the second meaning of selfishness relativity.

For example, a mother can sacrifice everything for her son's benefit, even if his behavior is antisocial. As far as the relationship between mother and child is concerned, mother is selfless, but as far as the relationship between mother and child, society and others is concerned, mother is selfish.

Understanding the relativity of selfishness is very important for answering the question whether selfishness is the existence of human beings or the product of human development to a certain stage.

One theory holds that people in ancient society (early and middle primitive society) were not selfish. Because the level of productivity determines that the means of production are public, * * * work together, and personal interests are always dissolved in collective interests. Individual members living in this era have no personal interests at all, and always put collective interests above personal interests. Individuals are willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the collective or other members. However, thinkers and theorists who hold this theory tell people with their historical knowledge of this era that groups (clans, tribes and tribal alliances) living in this era will also have conflicts over hunting grounds and pastoral areas. That is to say, on the one hand, there is no conflict of interest between individuals in the group, on the other hand, there is conflict of interest between groups. How to explain two different phenomena?

Question: There is no "for me" interest conflict within the group, but there is a "for us" interest conflict between the groups.

Assuming that it must be "for me" (individual's interest) to call it "selfish", "for us" (group's interest) can't be called selfish, or it can only be called "selfless". Then, when individual members of fascist groups in modern society sacrifice their lives for their group's interest, can't it be called selfish (such as kamikaze players in Japan)? Or should we call them selfless people?

The above phenomenon can be well explained by selfish relativity. As far as the interest relationship between individuals and groups is concerned, it is selfless to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of groups. As far as the interests of individuals, groups and groups are concerned, this kind of personal behavior is selfish.

Not only "for me" is selfish, "for us" can also be selfish.

It is precisely because of this that we can use the concepts of "group self-interest" and "national self-interest".

If the above analysis is true, then, even if there were no personal interests and conflicts of interest in ancient groups (this issue will be discussed later), selfishness has existed since ancient times only from the perspective of conflicts of interest between groups, and it is not a product of development to a certain stage.

Third, selfish division and the division of human morality.

The interests of any individual or group and others or another group always have both realistic unity and realistic contradiction.

The reason why it is unified is that any individual or group, when cooperating with others or other groups, has the realistic possibility of obtaining greater benefits than when acting alone. Furthermore, the reality of obtaining greater benefits may be based on the objective basis that the superiority of division of labor and the overall strength are greater than the simple sum of some strengths. Understanding this point is the key to understand why selfishness can lead people to cooperate and achieve the objective effect of giving consideration to both self-interest and benefit (reciprocity).

The contradiction lies in the impulse of human desire, in human greed, and in the constant scarcity of wealth and interests, and this physiological and social desire can never be effectively suppressed. So contradictions and conflicts are inevitable. Mahatma Gandhi said: "According to everyone's needs, things are enough, but according to everyone's greed, things are not enough." (Quoted from Western Social Diseases, Sanlian Publishing House, page 352, 1983) What he called "greed"

Refers to the impulse of social desire based on physiological needs. For example, in terms of personal physiological needs, everyone has several pairs of shoes to wear, which can not only protect their feet, but also facilitate walking, and can be replaced. Shoes are enough. However, if you wear shoes to pursue a beautiful spiritual enjoyment and to show that your social status is superior to others, it is just like Mrs. Marcos in the Philippines. It is not enough to own 3,000 pairs of shoes.

People's interests are unified, so I call it "reasonable selfishness" to act according to the principle of unity of interests, proceed from the interests of oneself or a group, and finally achieve the goal of self-interest by means of altruism. It has both the objective effects of self-interest and altruism and the concept of guiding this behavior.

People's interests are contradictory, so I call it "vicious selfishness". Acting according to the principle of contradiction, we will not only proceed from our own or group's interests, but also achieve the effect of harming others and benefiting ourselves by means of harming and sacrificing others and social interests.

The interests of people are divided into immediate interests and long-term interests. Correspondingly, human selfishness can be divided into "near selfishness" and "far selfishness". Consciousness and behavior for the immediate interests of individuals or groups can be called near selfishness; In contrast, the consciousness and behavior for the long-term interests of individuals or groups can be considered extremely selfish.

One of the most important reasons why people are clever and cunning, and why people have complicated interests is that people can sacrifice immediate interests for long-term interests. What people pursue is the best interest, but this best interest is viewed from the overall situation and in the long run. The overall and long-term best interests are often obtained at the expense of immediate and local interests. The so-called "if you want to take it, you must take it from yourself first." If you want to take it with a plum, you must first vote with a peach. " For the sake of self-interest, one can be altruistic first, and for the sake of self-interest, one can also be altruistic first. In the static sense, these two behaviors are easily confused with "selfless altruism" from one behavior or even a series of behaviors. Therefore, the concept of unselfishness is very important for grasping and understanding people's interests in a dynamic sense.

Let's look at the "cake theory" again: as far as a cake has been produced, the more capitalists get, the less workers get; On the contrary, the more workers get, the less capitalists get, which no one can change. However, the distribution of this quantitative cake will lead to the change of the next cake output. Capitalists have made it clear in repeated practice that if he gets too much and workers get too little in the distribution of existing cakes, it will be because this distribution has dampened the enthusiasm of workers for production, and the next cake may be produced smaller, which means that capitalists can't get more even if it is not less than last time. On the contrary, if he gets a smaller share this time and gives a larger share to the workers, then the cake will be produced more next time because it stimulates the enthusiasm of the workers, so that the workers may get more shares than last time and the capitalists will get more shares. People pursue the best interests, while capitalists pursue the total profits of the total products. He knows "five out of five", but he knows more about "four out of two out of eight".

Therefore, it is better to say that capitalists have changed from near selfishness to far selfishness than from selfishness.

Of course, the above analysis misses something, and the actual situation is much more complicated, but this is the basic truth. The view that the interests of workers and capitalists are fundamentally opposite can only be meaningful in a static sense, that is, the distribution of quantitative cakes. In a dynamic sense, from the distribution of a series of cakes, it is better to say that the interests of workers and capitalists are unified. If the interests of capitalists and workers are only contradictory but not unified, it is absolutely impossible for the capitalist system to exist for hundreds of years and still develop.

Corresponding to the division of selfishness is the division of human morality: as mentioned above, human moral behavior and ideas can be roughly divided into three types: a, harming others and benefiting themselves; B, benefit others and benefit themselves; C, sacrifice yourself and benefit others. According to the relative quantity of three different morals, ideas and behaviors, I morally divide people into three types: a, vicious and selfish people; B, reasonable and selfish; C. selflessness.

Malicious and selfish people often harm others and benefit themselves. People with vicious and selfish ideas not only consider their own interests first, but also often try to satisfy their own personal interests with the interests of others. They will do it at the first opportunity. From petty theft and fraud, to killing people and stealing goods, to stealing thieves. They lack compassion and responsibility. In their philosophy of life, people are like wolves, but in the real world, they are just "wolves have more meat and less meat". So there is only one rule: the law of the jungle. The so-called conscience and morality are all fooling people. Although many times, they also talk about these beautiful words, but this is just a cover, in order to deceive and plunder the interests of others and society more skillfully and conveniently. If evil and selfish people do not plunder and infringe on the interests of others and society, it is often because they are afraid of others and have strong social forces. What they are afraid of is that "stealing a chicken will not be broken." They obey moral laws, but donkeys obey whips.

Malicious and selfish people are the source of social disasters and floods. Generally speaking, they are only a minority in society.

Reasonable and selfish people in social life, the primary consideration is their own interests, "can bring me benefits" is the starting point of most of their actions. But compared with vicious and selfish people, reasonable and selfish people generally oppose harming others and benefiting themselves. "Live by yourself and let others live." They demand their own interests, but they are often willing to meet these interests through appropriate means (that is, permitted by general moral standards). Compared with vicious and selfish people, they are more sympathetic and conscientious, and are more likely to show altruistic behavior; But those who are more selfless are less willing to make sacrifices for others and society. Reasonable and selfish people are "good people" in the ordinary sense, but they are generally not "lofty".

Reasonable and selfish people are the majority of society, even the vast majority, and they are the basic factors of social stability. Because they account for the largest proportion, they are also the biggest force to promote social progress.

Selfless people are more altruistic and have lofty moral character. They are more likely to make sacrifices for the benefit of the country and the people. Many of them, for others, for the country, for the interests of the nation, went down in history at the expense of giving their most precious lives and lit up the future. I am convinced that as long as human beings are not all crazy, selfless people will always occupy the highest moral position in human history, and they are immortal.

Unfortunately, so far, selfless people have never been able to occupy the majority in human society. In a sense, they are superior because they are few. Although human beings have spent countless manpower and material resources to call such people, they still have not become the "majority". This may be enough to explain the problem.

The pure empirical description of the three kinds of people is undoubtedly very rough, but the general outline should not be wrong.

It should be pointed out that these three types of people are not "pure". There are no purely evil and selfish people, and there are no purely reasonable and selfish people or selfless people.

If people can really transform themselves and be transformed by the environment, then as individuals, there must be three possibilities: to be an evil and selfish person, to be a reasonable and selfish person, or to be selfless.

Therefore, it is undeniable that the three types of people are not fixed, but can be transformed into each other, and in fact they are also transforming into each other. A person who used to be a thief can also be transformed into a hero at the expense of others and society; Some "old revolutions" who once risked their lives to fight for the interests of the people can also be transformed into big corrupt criminals or become "officials" of the people. Needless to say, experience has repeatedly proved this point.

Here, I want to talk specifically about the view that there is no purely selfless person.

The reason why I want to talk about this problem is because some people have created and continue to create a myth that there is a person who has reached such a moral level. In any case, they always put the interests of others and people first. Whenever and wherever, they would rather sacrifice their own interests to safeguard the interests of others and people. They do not seek fame and fortune, but serve the revolution and the people wholeheartedly. The happiness of others and people and the liberation of mankind are their only goals in life. In short, these people have no "personal interests" at all. They are purely selfless. (See People's Publishing House 1984, 65438+February Edition, edited by Luo, the first 15 1 page, "selfless".

One eye. )

This view, except that it is wrong to say that the slogan of political agitation is an objective fact, can only be regarded as an out-and-out myth-because it can't be proved by any facts and can't stand any logical analysis. Theorists who hold this view can find people who would rather sacrifice their own interests or even their lives to meet the needs and happiness of others under any circumstances when they look through human history and search every corner of the world? Man's ability as an individual exists in the relationship between people. First of all, people exist for themselves. For an individual, merely existing for others essentially denies the necessity and possibility of human existence as an individual.

Fourth, why people are selfish and history is eternal.

Selfishness is an important, complex and extensive social phenomenon, so in order to understand it correctly and grasp it in essence, it is absolutely necessary to answer such a question: Why are people selfish?

One theory holds that selfishness is the result of environmental decision and the product of the development of human society to a certain historical stage. "As a kind of social consciousness, people's selfishness is a reflection of social existence. It comes into being with the emergence of private ownership and disappears with the elimination of private ownership." (See Li Chunqiu's Popular Ethics, Jilin People's Publishing House, 99 pages, September 1984). Furthermore, the level of productive forces has developed to a certain stage, which makes private ownership established and then forms the concept of private ownership. In short, private ownership determines private ideas (selfishness). In other words, without private ownership, there is no concept of private ownership.

However, the facts provided by the above theory cannot prove that "private ownership determines the concept of private ownership"

This argument.

Tao Dayong's History of Social Development (People's Publishing House, 1982, 10, the same below) points out: "To determine what is the personal property of primitive society, we must investigate what kind of property must be destroyed when burying the dead." Then, taking the 133 tomb excavated in Dawenkou, Shandong Province as an example, it shows that there were tools of production, pig heads, teeth and bones buried at that time. "From the general trend, the more tools of production, pig heads and bones buried with them. It can be seen from the mutual proportion of burial tools, pig heads and bones that the proportion of tools is much larger. This reflects that the production tools in China were privatized earlier.