Selfishness and Altruism - How to Juggle Between Them

Should we be more selfish or more altruistic? The answer as to why we should be more selfish is similar to why we should be altruistic. The first answer is because not everything revolves around others, so we matter too. And the second answer is because not everything revolves around ourselves, hence why other people matter as well as us.

Therefore, because both answers are true, we should constantly juggle between self-interest and selflessness, because the universe, per se, does not revolve around any one entity, whether yourself or others. We all need to learn when it fits our plans to be egotistical, and when to lower it in favour of the environment. It is, in a way, a skill, a tactic that could become intuitive the more we practice it.

In such cases, a "mistake" can be defined when we considered the "wrong" side of the interaction between the self and others. We can figure that out when our own choices hinder us in the conversation, or when our choices are counter-intuitive to our intention in said conversation.

For example: We may put ourselves in higher priority to the point that the other side of the exchange may want to sever their ties with you, as they received the impression that you're a narcissist from all the self-interest you displayed.

An opposite example: You're too altruistic for your own good that you've become a people pleaser. Then, connections that can be useful for you, may begin to use you for their own gain, with little to no regard for your own interest, as you lack the spine to assert your ego and resist their abuse of your good will.

By being more selfish, we can prevent people from walking all over us, and by being more altruistic, we can prevent guilt from the possibility that we have mistreated and/or underestimated others.

Therefore, there are times when we should be more selfish, and times when we should be more altruistic. There is no general way to know when each attitude is proper other than whatever helps your plans go in motion. As such, other than your ambitions, you'll have to "read the room" and figure out for yourself within each specific moment. As said, like with many abilities, from walking to playing a musical instrument, it can eventually be intuitive. You'll just have to experience interactions, and not be afraid of making mistakes. Use these mistakes to learn.

I'd like to argue that every skill can eventually become automatic to a degree once you master it. It becomes part of something I would like to call, the minion self. The brain is a very adjustable organ. As such, you may understand when to consider yourself and others the more your brain learns this skill and wires itself in accordance. It's part of its neuroplasticity. So, don't worry so much if you do. Don't let your social anxiety stand in your way of your plans and ambitions. We need to cooperate for our interests to work. A good communication won't necessarily cut it. We need to prioritize self vs company in accordance to the situation at hand.

And for that we need to have a strong grip on what is more important than otherwise. The objective existence of importance is why the Strawman Fallacy exists to begin with.

For example, when interacting with someone you don't know on the internet, you should be more selfish, because that person might try to deceive you into paying them by telling you lies that will make you worry about them. Such occurrences have happened before, and as the saying, goes, "There's a sucker born every minute".

In this case, we should prioritize ourselves over them because in this case, the importance of not getting scammed is more important than the value of trust. We can thus see that importance has some kind of objectivity that does not depend on subjective perception.

Here is another example of the opposite state. When taking care of a baby, you should put their needs over yours because they are way more dependent on the one responsible for them than you are on them. Since they need help in basic functioning, a functioning that you are not dependent on them in order to occur, then logic dictates that you should put their needs over yours. The being of "babyhood" gives them another importance in relation to you, a being of adulthood.

Being more selfish and more altruistic doesn't have to be two things that contradict each other, by the way. With enough judgment, one can decide when to be more of the former and when to be more of the latter.

It depends on whether or not you don't have something. One is egotistical because he lacks, and one is altruistic because they have something to give. The egoist may compensate for something he lacks, so he might be pompous as a result. The altruist can be modest simply because he or she do not have anything to compensate for. The egoist may look for love because they want to be loved, and the altruist may look for love because they have a need someone to love, more than be loved themselves.

In love, submission is an altruistic act that gives one's partner something they want: trust and respect. Some people may feel compelled to be submissive because they want to give their partner the validation of loyalty, devotion and acceptance. The dominant may be such because they need to be empowered, and that can be done by taking charge.

Having this mutual connection or deal means that one has to give something in return from the opposite side. It's how businesses work and why the state is also a business.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say selfishness is evil. It can be used for good deeds as long as there is a personal gain, such as volunteering in exchange for a shout-out. It is called ethical/moral egoism, and that moral approach is always conditioned on the self to be benefitted from, eventually.

Also, Selfishness and Altruism can ironically be used for bad intentions, such as when a fanatic sacrifices themselves in the name of religion or country. The Bushido Code, covered on Philosocom, was used to justify the existence of the Kamikaze pilots and the Salaryman philosophy, also covered on Philosocom.

Since the self and others are both important, it should be okay to be egotistical as long as the egoist's deeds cause good in the world—and they definitely can. Because all and all, both moral approaches to our actions can be used for either good or evil. We need to make sure to appreciate consequentialism, and understand that there are times were the ends justify the means. As such, our philosophies can be just that.

And it is your choice to whether or not be good or evil, or discard both. My selfish interest as the founder of Philosocom is to use this article empire for the benefit of the world. How is it selfish? Deep inside, I know that's how I'll be relevant. Relevant and respected, should I fail to be loved.

We're all benefitting from this, so I have no regrets about my confession.

Glory to Philosocom.