NationStates Jolt Archive

Its come up in a couple of threads, as to whether humans are naturally selfish beings, and so I'd like to ask NSG: What is the nature of man?

I would put forward that humans are not "tabula rasa" but more like a page from a coloring book. Genetics shapes the lines, but life experience fills in the colors.

It is however, my personal belief is that the majority of people are selfish, and therefore, either the majority of stimuli in today's world result in selfish behavior, or humans are naturally predisposed to selfishness. I don't think that it is the former case. For example, Take a child who has been given everything he could want in life, the child will still hoard toys during play time with others- clearly even abundance does not cure selfishness. Furthermore, the neglected child will hoard food in order to ensure his survival if hard times strike. This hoarding precludes others and therefore may be categorized as selfishness.

Also, consider the man who gives to charities. What motivates his charity? Surely he is propelled by emotions, or logic (or both). If emotional, the man is just responding in a manner that will help him feel better about himself- the charity isn't about others needs but his own desire to feel good about himself. Logical charity occurs when a person gives to another in the hopes of some sort of return on investment, as such doesn't need consideration as the person's motives are clear. So in the end, even "charitable" actions serve to further the individual performing them, and as such are selfish.

I don't mean to say that all people are mostly selfish, but rather that humanity as a whole is composed of people who are mostly selfish, and even the most selfless person has some underlying selfish tendency.

Humanity is programmed by genetics towards a selfish worldview. It promotes our continued existence and the propagation of our genetic template.

Thankfully, we are also intelligent enough to understand the advantage of cooperation above competition to attain these goals.

Humanity is programmed by genetics towards a selfish worldview. It promotes our continued existence and the propagation of our genetic template.

Thankfully, we are also intelligent enough to understand the advantage of cooperation above competition to attain these goals.

*nods*

People can be selfish and selfless depending on the economic social environment which teaches them how to act.

For example Capitalism promotes selfishness, violence, barbarism, injustice and exploitation, and Socialism promotes the opposite.

Genetic predetermination is racist and reactionary.

People can be both selfish and selfless.

People can be selfish and selfless depending on the economic social environment which teaches them how to act.

For example Capitalism promotes selfishness, violence, barbarism, injustice and exploitation, and Socialism promotes the opposite.

Genetic predetermination is racist and reactionary.

perhaps, perhaps not. However I find it unlikely that all people would be capable of being selfless in any society. So, how does socialism work to remove the normal human predisposition of being selfish, or at least in your view, how does it prevent the imprint of selfishness on an individual?

Also, how can it be that genetics play no part in human nature, surely an insect cannot act like a human being can, the only thing separating insects from humans is genetic.

Humans are naturally selfish. We look out for ourselves first and everyone else second.

perhaps, perhaps not. However I find it unlikely that all people would be capable of being selfless in any society. So, how does socialism work to remove the normal human predisposition of being selfish, or at least in your view, how does it prevent the imprint of selfishness on an individual?


Let me give you an example, it's actually the one I used in the other thread about anarchism.

In 1937 in Moscow the Soviets actually managed to 'communize' bread, meaning they distributed without government restriction in Moscow.

They took the view at that time that communism was something to be introduced by installments, not over night, not all at once in every field but gradually so that once production in a particular commodity became sufficient so this particular article could be communized, and at that time in Moscow bread was now free. You could go into a shop and help yourself.

And it worked. After all, I assume you don't pay for your water by the gallon, it doesn't mean you turn your tap on deliberately just to get something for nothing. People don't, and I think its only a small step to changing peoples attitudes to realize that there is no point in taking more than you want.

The individual incentive in socialism is as follows: You make available to the community the product of our labor, and in return every other worker makes available to you the product of his labor. That is why socialism overcomes the barter and currency model of capitalism, which centralized wealth and provides little incentive. Under socialism everyone has access to all the products of society, so from an economic perspective alone socialism has more incentive than capitalism, in which the vast majority of people only have access to a limit set of products.

Socialism is the liberation from wants, capitalism is a system where some people get more than any reasonable person needs or wants at the expense of everyone else, who don't get what they want or need.

Thankfully, we are also intelligent enough to understand the advantage of cooperation above competition to attain these goals.

Eh, well... some of us are...

Human's are, by our very nature, selfish. Evolution has programmed us to act in a way that is most likely to ensure our genetic survival. However, because this can be as much about survival of our community/progeny (and thus, because early communities would be family units, survival of our genetic material), this ultimate selfishness can lead to selfless acts.

Human's are, by our very nature, selfish. Evolution has programmed us to act in a way that is most likely to ensure our genetic survival. However, because this can be as much about survival of our community/progeny (and thus, because early communities would be family units, survival of our genetic material), this ultimate selfishness can lead to selfless acts.

As in: It's selfish to be selfless sometimes.

It's not about individual incentive, it's about people being allowed to excessively take more than they could ever want or need.

Their is a difference.

I should note that i was taught that Socialism failed, for one reason, because "if two people have the same job, they get the same amount(of whatever) in return, no matter how much work they do, thus even if one might work as hard as possible, the other may not do more then is required to keep his/her position." thus the system failed based on one person being lazy, which can translate to selfishness, by comparison, capitalism forces one to be good at what they do and to actively try in order to get ahead, and thus far capitalism seems to work fairly well.

the Selfless setup(Socialism) fails, the Selfish ideals in Capitalism have yet to fail

Let me give you an example, it's actually the one I used in the other thread about anarchism.

In 1937 in Moscow the Soviets actually managed to 'communize' bread, meaning they distributed without government restriction in Moscow.

They took the view at that time that communism was something to be introduced by installments, not over night, not all at once in every field but gradually so that once production in a particular commodity became sufficient so this particular article could be communized, and at that time in Moscow bread was now free. You could go into a shop and help yourself.

And it worked. After all, I assume you don't pay for your water by the gallon, it doesn't mean you turn your tap on deliberately just to get something for nothing. People don't, and I think its only a small step to changing peoples attitudes to realize that there is no point in taking more than you want.

The individual incentive in socialism is as follows: You make available to the community the product of our labor, and in return every other worker makes available to you the product of his labor. That is why socialism overcomes the barter and currency model of capitalism, which centralized wealth and provides little incentive. Under socialism everyone has access to all the products of society, so from an economic perspective alone socialism has more incentive than capitalism, in which the vast majority of people only have access to a limit set of products.

Socialism is the liberation from wants, capitalism is a system where some people get more than any reasonable person needs or wants at the expense of everyone else, who don't get what they want or need.

I didn't know anyone didn't pay for their water by volume (I know I do, i'm sure they don't measure it in gallons though). For example san diego, just happened to be the first to pop up on google. http://www.sandiego.gov/water/rates/rates.shtml

Of course people still use water at enormous rates even though they pay for it, its gotten to the point where some states in the US are looking to basically import water from neighboring states.

I can see how communizing bread would work, as people have only so much appetite, even if making it free increased it's use by a little, production would probably be able to compensate, as I'm assuming the majority of people in Moscow weren't starving at the time, so there was already bread enough to go around. The problem lies with assuming people want only so much your statement "I think its only a small step to changing peoples attitudes to realize that there is no point in taking more than you want." Bread is a short lived thing, and there really is only so much you could hoard before it goes stale, because its impossible to eat an infinite amount of bread. However, cars and many other items people often like to have just for having, no one gets invited over to see their friend's bread collection, but people can and do hoard other items.

I should note that i was taught that Socialism failed, for one reason, because "if two people have the same job, they get the same amount(of whatever) in return, no matter how much work they do, thus even if one might work as hard as possible, the other may not do more then is required to keep his/her position." thus the system failed based on one person being lazy, which can translate to selfishness, by comparison, capitalism forces one to be good at what they do and to actively try in order to get ahead, and thus far capitalism seems to work fairly well.

the Selfless setup(Socialism) fails, the Selfish ideals in Capitalism have yet to fail
Way to fail to read my posts, what you were 'taught' was bourgeois propaganda meant to indoctrinate the young to the cultural hegemony of Capital.

Capitalism by definition agglomerates population, centralizes the means of production, and concentrates property in a few hands. The incentive to work in capitalism is starvation, homelessness, survival itself. I would like to think socialism has a much better incentive than the barbarous 'work or die' mentality of capitalism.

People are by nature neither entirely selfish nor entirely selfless. They are a bit of both. Even young children will of their own accord share food and toys with others. It's not all want want want.
Cooperation is a better evolutionary strategy than one of selfishness. And that's why even though you can say our genes are selfish, we as species are not. The same gene is shared by many people, and so by being predisposed to help eachother in numerous circumstances our genes prosper.

Capitalism by definition agglomerates population, centralizes the means of production, and concentrates property in a few hands. The incentive to work in capitalism is starvation, homelessness, survival itself. I would like to think socialism has a much better incentive than the barbarous 'work or die' mentality of capitalism.

And yet the vast majority of people (even the "poor") in capitalistic countries have a large amount of luxuries. So clearly while the threat of starvation is a good prod to get the laziest to work, other incentives work wonders as well.

also, what would be the incentive to work in socialism?

This is a difficult question, because we have to ascribe a motive to someone. How do we know what they are thinking or how they came to that conclusion? We might see a selfish act, but the one doing it considers it selfless.

I think broadly speaking, we have an instinctive will to survive, but also to nurture our families and to an extent friends / mates. Our environment can codify these into morality, or teach us to think critically about why we do such and such an action.

The label 'selfish/less' is still something that tends to be retroactively applied to a choice, I don't think it's a consideration at the time, as such. So it's subject to all sorts of revision by the mind and hindsight.

And yet the vast majority of people (even the "poor") in capitalistic countries have a large amount of luxuries. So clearly while the threat of starvation is a good prod to get the laziest to work, other incentives work wonders as well.
Your talking about the 'first world' countries I assume, in which the workers are kept 'pampered' by the exploitation of the vast majority of the humanity (in the 'third world'). Class society doesn't just 'stop' at national or regional borders, capitalism is a global system which keeps the majority of people living barely at subsistence levels, in abject poverty, ignorance, barbarism and on the verge of starvation.

Just because you are lucky enough to live in a minority of the worlds population, in which the exploitation of the great many in the 'third world' keeps 'western' proletarians placated. You shouldn't assume starvation isn't a daily coercive tactic of capitalism for the vast majority of toiling masses the world over.

also, what would be the incentive to work in socialism?

To be a good member of society and contribute your worth - it's the real issue I have with those who say 'well the problem with socialism/communism is that one person will work hard and the other won't and resentment will grow'.

The problem with most communist systems so far is that it's often also deeply patriotic, almost nationalist, although to a 'party' rather than a 'nation' as such.

Hence, one does things for the party, not for the common good of everyone. Hence, if you don't follow the party line, you'll be shot. Also, the pigs become human and it's hard to feel love for a party that's riding round in limousines and clearly gaining privileges from their position.

Otherwise, why on earth would one consider it better to work for money that it is for the greater good of the community?

You'll notice that the people who support capitalism have never been to a Third World country or seen real degrading poverty and exploitation on a daily basis.

I am honestly sick of seeing the naive idealistic western kids who wouldn't know exploitation if it hit them on the head, and judge the entire world based on their isolated pampered lifestyle, a lifestyle only made possible because of the degrading poverty of the third world.

Talk about willful ignorance.

To be a good member of society and contribute your worth - it's the real issue I have with those who say 'well the problem with socialism/communism is that one person will work hard and the other won't and resentment will grow'.

The problem with most communist systems so far is that it's often also deeply patriotic, almost nationalist, although to a 'party' rather than a 'nation' as such.

Hence, one does things for the party, not for the common good of everyone. Hence, if you don't follow the party line, you'll be shot. Also, the pigs become human and it's hard to feel love for a party that's riding round in limousines and clearly gaining privileges from their position.

Otherwise, why on earth would one consider it better to work for money that it is for the greater good of the community?
I'm honestly confused as to where your question comes from, your previous statements only illustrated reasons why communism doesn't work all that great.

I'll answer the question as best I can though: because the greater good of the community doesn't help you as much as few dollars in your pocket.

I'm honestly confused as to where your question comes from, your previous statements only illustrated reasons why communism doesn't work all that great.

I'll answer the question as best I can though: because the greater good of the community doesn't help you as much as few dollars in your pocket.

Another fool who didn't read my posts.

Capitalism: Limits the majority of the populace to a small amount of products.

Socialism: Allows everyone to have access to all the products of society.

Socialism > Capitalism

This is a funny question, because out comes this whole idea of how much free will do we have. Now certainly we have drives, and conflicting ones. Now which of the conflicting drives do we decided on and how we decided to achieve them should have at least some freedom to biological limitations. Hence if you ask me what is the "human nature", I will say every action that human have ever taken.

My theory is that we are an evolutionary disaster in which we are always in conflict with ourselves. In order to choose one over another, constant self justification is needed. This is we exhibit seemingly endless rituals, or why "natural" means so much to us. It isn't enough that we do something just because we ourselves are like this, we must rationalize that everyone else is also like this. We use religions and ideas to keep our mind away from the conflicts, to surrender to a higher being or an idea of some form.

Culture of course does help shape our behaviors as it does offer us with this sense of justification. And so it should be no surprise that we will find more self oriented people in a capitalist society. However, when you look at Nazi Germany for example, the widespread nationalism does seem to contribute to this whole selfless acts, of surrendering to a higher authority. When I look at the Milgram Experiment there's clearly an indication of selfless acts where people disregard their own desires and instead follow the lead. Most of the subjects was under serious emotional distress as they continue to follow their orders to press that button.

Here's a link for those who doesn't know what Milgram Experiment is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

You'll notice that the people who support capitalism have never been to a Third World country or seen real degrading poverty and exploitation on a daily basis.

I am honestly sick of seeing the naive idealistic western kids who wouldn't know exploitation if it hit them on the head, and judge the entire world based on their isolated pampered lifestyle, a lifestyle only made possible because of the degrading poverty of the third world.

Talk about willful ignorance.

If you want to try to insult people make your own thread about it. As it is I'd like to focus on the topic, which is the nature of man, and how you say socialism will necessarily remove, or prevent selfish behavior.

On Topic:


Just because you are lucky enough to live in a minority of the worlds population, in which the exploitation of the great many in the 'third world' keeps 'western' proletarians placated. You shouldn't assume starvation isn't a daily coercive tactic of capitalism for the vast majority of toiling masses the world over.

Indeed, I overlooked the system as a whole, however my point was that starvation is not a necessary component of capitalism, as there are other incentives, that would draw people to perform labor, besides the threat of starvation.

Another fool who didn't read my posts.

Capitalism: Limits the majority of the populace to a small amount of products.

Socialism: Allows everyone to have access to all the products of society.

Socialism > Capitalism

I read your posts, but as it turns out I was quoting someone else. Be feel free to continue the way you're going. You might like to notice that the thread is about selfishness, not whether communism is better than capitalism. I know you have a lot of trouble with it, but do try to stay on topic.

If you want to try to insult people make your own thread about it. As it is I'd like to focus on the topic, which is the nature of man, and how you say socialism will necessarily remove, or prevent selfish behavior.

On Topic:



Indeed, I overlooked the system as a whole, however my point was that starvation is not a necessary component of capitalism, as there are other incentives, that would draw people to perform labor, besides the threat of starvation.

No, for the vast majority starvation and death IS the threat, it's only because of the exploitation of the third world that western countries can 'afford' to offer 'better' incentives to their own workers, but even then those incentives aren't much better.

This is a funny question.. <snip for length>

I would question whether the people were following orders based on selfishness or selflessness. Most people are wired such that they will conform because of self interest, not in spite of it. I would see it as such: most people who continued with the experiment were doing it out of fear of some sort of reprisal from the leader(whether social or otherwise), and would continue to administer shocks, despite knowing it was not in the best interest of the individual being shocked or society as a whole.

They are both, at different moments.

No, for the vast majority starvation and death IS the threat, it's only because of the exploitation of the third world that western countries can 'afford' to offer 'better' incentives to their own workers, but even then those incentives aren't much better.

Well, capitalism works, or not depending on how you view it. Care to illustrate how socialism would work to remove selfishness? Other than the bread and water examples which I already debunked.

Well, capitalism works, or not depending on how you view it. Care to illustrate how socialism would work to remove selfishness? Other than the bread and water examples which I already debunked.

On the contrary, you have offered nothing, nothing new or not already discredited anyway. You simply regurgitate the same-old 'capitalism works' lame mantra again and again.

Please, your bourgeois propaganda may work on those without an education, but not me.

Capitalism only 'works' inside your idealistic head Lack, no where else.

On the contrary, you have offered nothing, nothing new or not already discredited anyway. You simply regurgitate the same-old 'capitalism works' lame mantra again and again.

Please, your bourgeois propaganda may work on those without an education, but not me.

Capitalism only 'works' inside your idealistic head Lack, no where else.

Then tell me what was wrong with my analysis of the bread situation in Moscow, and how bread operates in the same way as other commodities.

Then tell me what was wrong with my analysis of the bread situation in Moscow, and how bread operates in the same way as other commodities.

Bread is simply an example of a product being communized, which is why it was the first product to be communized. More advanced commodities can be communized over time, it would just take longer. For other commodities a simply recordkeeping system (an electronic one these days) would suffice.

I would question whether the people were following orders based on selfishness or selflessness. Most people are wired such that they will conform because of self interest, not in spite of it. I would see it as such: most people who continued with the experiment were doing it out of fear of some sort of reprisal from the leader(whether social or otherwise), and would continue to administer shocks, despite knowing it was not in the best interest of the individual being shocked or society as a whole.

If we want to interpret selfish as "having an emotional reason to do something", then obviously that is true. If you are asking where all those decisions come from, then obviously it comes from our own nervous system. However doing so will make your question completely meaningless. What I was bringing up is that there are far more than just fear of the leader that makes them perform the act, for if that is solely the reason they wouldn't have any emotional distress for pressing, they will simply do it and that's that. Why do the subject even care about the person in the next room? Why do some stop pressing? The emotional distress itself is a proof of this never ending conflict and confusion inside our mind, which transcends pure selfishness.

Here are some questions for you, are you really so sure about human being selfish? If we are really so sure of our stands, what make us post here? Why do we want to perform in this ritual of boardcasting our views on the internet? And why does it feel good when someone agrees with us?

Consider this thought experiment. For those who believe in human selfishness, imagine not using human selfishness to justify your own actions for one week. Likewise for those who believe in human selflessness, imagine not using human selflessness to justify your own actions for one week.

Perhaps we are so vigorously defending our points not out of belief, but because we know that if we are wrong, we can no longer justify some of our actions. It is simply an act to keep all that doubt from flooding back at us.

People can be selfish and selfless depending on the economic social environment which teaches them how to act.


Given how much you rant against Khrushchev, who was schooled under the system set up by your idol, Stalin, you clearly don't believe this statement.

I fully expect you to defend your position now with unproven rants that are either un-sourced or taken from somebody else's unproven rants, about how Khrushchev was secretly trained by capitalist spies and traitors who arranged for his rise to power.

Logical charity occurs when a person gives to another in the hopes of some sort of return on investment, as such doesn't need consideration as the person's motives are clear.

Actually, that's only one kind of logical charity.

You omit another: what if I give to charity because I have been rationally convinced that it is the right thing to do? What if I am responding to a moral argument I have heard that other people's freedom and happiness matter, and that I have a positive duty to promote them?

It is pointless to try and categorise over 6 billion individuals as all selfish or all selfless.

I think this thought experiment is suitable for this topic.

Suppose you are on a ship, and a rogue wave comes along and your ship have sunk. Upon waking up you find yourself on an island with your pistol, still fully functional, and a young couple. The three of you decided to travel together to explore the island. After exploring the island thoroughly, say for about a month or so, you realize that this is a natural paradise; that there is no worry for food, or water, or natural predators of any kind. As you watch the couple living happily together, you notice that the girl is the most beautiful thing you even seen, and want her for yourself. You know for a fact that survival is not a problem, but you also know that there is little hope of ever leaving the island for you to find a girl of your own. Upon nightfall when both of them are deeply asleep, and with your trusty pistol in your hand, would you

A. Kill the guy and force yourself on the girl.
B. Put away your gun despite how much you wanted to have sex with her.

And how do you come to this decision?

I say humans are naturally selfish when born. It's genetically coded to fight for survival, beating out the others. But we also have a conscience, wanting (most of us) to be selfless and help others. Or maybe I'm being too simple...

It is pointless to try and categorise over 6 billion individuals as all selfish or all selfless.

agreed, you'll notice, I hope, that I even stated that I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement about every single person, just a sort of weighted average I guess.

I think this thought experiment is suitable for this topic.

Suppose you are on a ship, and a rogue wave comes along and your ship have sunk. Upon waking up you find yourself on an island with your pistol, still fully functional, and a young couple. The three of you decided to travel together to explore the island. After exploring the island thoroughly, say for about a month or so, you realize that this is a natural paradise; that there is no worry for food, or water, or natural predators of any kind. As you watch the couple living happily together, you notice that the girl is the most beautiful thing you even seen, and want her for yourself. You know for a fact that survival is not a problem, but you also know that there is little hope of ever leaving the island for you to find a girl of your own. Upon nightfall when both of them are deeply asleep, and with your trusty pistol in your hand, would you

A. Kill the guy and force yourself on the girl.
B. Put away your gun despite how much you wanted to have sex with her.

And how do you come to this decision?

I suppose it depends, if I act based solely on what you've given here, the answer is simply to kill the guy and rape the girl. However, most people have morals, and furthermore, wanting sex doesn't necessarily trump other things. For example, maybe I like talking to the man, or would enjoy having a woman who actually likes me and doesn't loathe me. Furthermore, if I rape her I may have to kill her to ensure my safety, at which point it'd have no company, which would suck. The obvious answer is not to kill the man (at this time), or rape the girl. (anyway, have to get to work...)

People are selfish or selfless depending on how they are as people. It's an internal drive centered on how they were raised, what sort of environment their parents provided, and, of course, genetic predispositions towards certain attitudes.

Me? I'm notoriously selfless, but that's probably because in my family, I was rapidly relegated to the side by my super-needy younger sister. Beyond that, I've been the peacemaker for years. So, my inclination is to play the martyr, so to say.

I don't mean to say that all people are mostly selfish, but rather that humanity as a whole is composed of people who are mostly selfish, and even the most selfless person has some underlying selfish tendency.

Humanity is programmed by genetics towards a selfish worldview. It promotes our continued existence and the propagation of our genetic template.
The two statements above are a complete misunderstanding of genetics, human motivation, and a number of other issues. Unfortunately, this view has become very popular in recent years, pushed by Dawkins, Ghiselin and their 'sociobiologist' colleagues.

Genes have no interests; they are inanimate pieces of goo in cell. They have as much interest in continuing their existence as rivers have of not being damned, or trees have of not being cut down. To talk of genes 'programming' humans to be selfish is utterly bizarre; we are confusing ourselves with our genes, and this is as nonsensical as confusing an individual with their hair fibres, or their lymph nodes. When I buy a present for my friends birthday, it is my friend who I am concerned with, not their genes. (I owe much of this to Richard Joyce.)

A lot of this strange talk of genes and their 'influence' is a result of a confusion between the content of a mental state and the cause of a mental state. To use Joyce's illustration, if an individual's nervousness about an upcoming job interview is partially caused because they just drank many cups of strong coffee (and had they not drunk the coffee, they wouldn't now be nervous), it would be nutty to say that they were really nervous of the coffee! And this same mistake in reasoning is made by folks who believe genes 'program' or 'control ourselves and our interests.

Suppose Bob is looking after his sick wife, and he professes to do so because he sincerely wishes to alleviate her illness and because he loves her. Some would say (would you?) that that it is in Bob's reproductive or genetic interest to look after his wife, to ensure he will have help raising his children, noting that Bob's love for his wife is the result of an evolved/genetic mechanism that ensures individuals look after their mates.

However, the explanation above shows nothing of Bob's motivations, and certainly doesn't show that he 'really' is being selfish, that he 'really' cares about his reproductive fitness.

We are in danger here, again, of confusing mental content with mental causes; Bob's reasons for caring for his wife is the fact that he loves her and doesn't want her to suffer. A reason why her suffering moves him to act might well be that caring for one's mate advances reproductive fitness, and this behaviour has been selected in humans on an evolutionary scale. But to then go on and concluder that they are therefore Bob's reasons is a terrible mistake.

(Once again, I have to acknowledge the philosopher Richard Joyce and his clear thinking on this subject, as highlighted in his wonderful The Evolution of Morality.)

In my view, humans are neither innately selfish or innately selfless. We are capable, quite obviously, of both selfishness and altruism (true altruism, nit this nonsense-filled 'selfish altruism' as peddled by Dawkins), and to some extent, both have played a massive influence in human development.

We couldn't survive as a species if we were 'naturally' selfish, but that's not to say we are 'naturally' altruistic.

I suppose it depends, if I act based solely on what you've given here, the answer is simply to kill the guy and rape the girl. However, most people have morals, and furthermore, wanting sex doesn't necessarily trump other things. For example, maybe I like talking to the man, or would enjoy having a woman who actually likes me and doesn't loathe me. Furthermore, if I rape her I may have to kill her to ensure my safety, at which point it'd have no company, which would suck. The obvious answer is not to kill the man (at this time), or rape the girl. (anyway, have to get to work...)

And this is the whole internal conflict I wanted to bring out. If you are a chimp or a lion, it's a no brainer for you to kill the alpha male and take over. Now with humans there are plenty of other, more social factors that drives us into behaving the way we do.

So for example, the enjoying of talking to the man, is a sign of cooperation. Even if there are no survival reasons why we would want to talk to him in that particular case, your brain seems to long for companion anyway. Without this desire, why would you experience this joy? He is technically your rival and if all you wanted is to pass down your genes, he certainly needed to die.

This, and the concern with the reaction of the woman, seems to be a good example of "game theory". It explains how evolution, driven by seemingly selfish process of maximizing ourselves, leads to selfless traits. If you think about it if all organism is nothing more than self oriented, multi cellular organism such as ourselves wouldn't even exist. As human beings we are surely capable of both selfishness and selflessness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

Old Soviet Joke:

Minister visits collective farm. Farmer gives him a tour.

Minister: "Look at what Communism has done for you! You people used to be starving now look. Tell me, how many potatoes is this great farm producing?"

Farmer: "Comrade Minister we love socialism! We have enough potatoes to fit under God himself!"

Minister: "But this is Communism there is no God!"

Farmer: "That's alright because there are no potatoes."

You'll notice that the people who support capitalism have never been to a Third World country or seen real degrading poverty and exploitation on a daily basis.

The real funny irony is... that's where some of the most dedicated entrepeneurs COME FROM!

I have always viewed this from a solipsisistic viewpoint.
Everything you do, you do.
Even the most altruistic person cant help anyone without deciding to help.
And simultaneously, I dislike egoistic,selfish people.
Strange.

Most of what he/you has said(in this thread)
QFE

I'd say a lot of people are kind of a combination of the two. I often help out friends and family members, with no personal reward, doing tasks I don't even enjoy. I also try to help the less fortunate, even if I don't know them, with no real gain for myself.

But on the other hand, I do have personal needs, and I do serve my own desires. I am not wholly selfless, even if I wish I was, but thankfully, I'm not wholly selfish either. I would think that's how most people are, but I can't really read minds so I can never know for sure.

As for "Objectivism", there's no scientific way to prove that everyone is always self-serving, so if it's a question of belief, I've got plenty of better things to believe in (and so does everyone else).

Nonsense. Humans are naturally selfless. It is programmed that in order for the species to advance, all must work together and help each other. The problem is humans often are able to ignore instinct (hence why sex and love are so powerful--we need to reproduce. If it didn't feel good, most of us wouldn't bother). People give to charity because it helps other humans which consciously provides happiness and such and subconsciously does other things. It's Nature's way of making sure you do what needs to be done.

There's none of this hoarding rubbish. You don't even back up your claims. Prove to me that children with lots of toys will hoard ones meant for sharing. As well as your other claims.

Quite contrarily, studies have shown that most people naturally want to help each other.