Aleks’s comments here, in particular the bit about selfishness, reminds me of one of my favorite papers, “The norm of self-interest” by the psychologist Dale Miller. Here’s the abstract:
The self-interest motive is singularly powerful according to many of the most influential theories of human behavior and the layperson alike. In the present article the author examines the role the assumption of self-interest plays in its own confirmation. It is proposed that a norm exists in Western cultures that specifies self-interest both is and ought to be a powerful determinant of behavior. This norm influences people’s actions and opinions as well as the accounts they give for their actions and opinions. In particular, it leads people to act and speak as though they care more about their material self-interest than they do. Consequences of misinterpreting the “fact” of self- interest are discussed.
(Related work by Noah Kaplan, Aaron Edlin, and myself here, distinguishing rationality from selfishness as motivations for voting.)
Aleks, thank you for posting the paper. Here's a quote that I found of particular interst.
"People, it would appear, can be taught to act "naturally." "
If acting in accordance with self-interst is "natural", then shouldn't the fact that some need to be taught to act "naturally" actually seems to promote the notion that some are being raised or influenced by society in an "unnatural" way…. that some must have influenced at some point to NOT act in accordance with self-interest. Why else would they need to be taught to act "naturally?"
Grad Student: If you teach people to behave in an altruistic manner, your achievement is that the better learners sacrifice themselves for the bad learners. Is this what we want? What one teaches should benefit the learner foremost.
Perhaps it should be called the perceived self-interest norm. What is actually in one's best interests may be up for debate and relative to one's own beliefs, culture, or religion.
Tautologically, all actions are self-interested in the sense that people are doing whatever they happen to be doing. For example, if person A goes hungry so as to feed a complete stranger (person B) who is even hungrier, this could be viewed as self-interested in the sense that person A must have received some psychological benefit from it.
When we speak of "self-interest," we're going beyond this tautology to speak of actions that benefit oneself instrumentally. Webster's describes self-interest as "a concern for one's own advantage and well-being." Yes, you can define well-being completely tautologically to mean "whatever you happen do be doing" but that's not very helpful. I think it's more reasonable to describe some–maybe most–of our actions as self-interested, but with other possible motivations also.
Why do you think it might be that most of our actions are governed by self-interest? Do you think that is essential and/or natural for this to happen in a society in which it is perceived that others will act in accordance with their self-interest… simply a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Our society has instilled in us from a young age that it is important to seek and achieve material wealth, thereby, I believe, increasing our desire to act in our self-interest. What is the result and where will this take us as a society. Is it natural for this to happen? Is it essential for our continued growth and success as a race?
Current,
I was just saying that the dividing line between "self-interested" and "not self-interested" is somewhat arbitrary. Some people take the extreme tack of defining everything as self-interest, which seems sort of silly for me. From a psychological point of view, some actions feel self-interested and some don't. One of the points of Miller's article, I believe, is that changing our expectations can change how we label and feel about our actions.
What is the point of only changing how we label and feel about our actions…. what about the actions themselves. I understood one of the main points of his article to be that self-interest is cyclical. The theory that it is natural to act in our self-interests leads to increased acceptance of acting in accord with our self-interest as well as the belief that it is in fact natural.
Miller further goes on to say that "people are self-interested" and "people ought to be self-interested." I suppose that from a purely rational/economical perspective this is true, but is this really how we ought to act as well as judge human behavior.