Are we still Savages?
Those of us that have
read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of
Inequality Among Men have found an interesting point of view on the state of
nature. What is even more interesting is he driving reasons for action in a person's
life. The two basic drives of natural man are self-preservation and pity.
(Rousseau) However I believe that he is wrong. I believe the basic drive for
man or woman is self-interest. It is the selfishness of people to do what they
want. People will always do what gives them the most gain from the least
possible cost.
Self-preservation and
pity are easily sub sections of self-interest. People will always do what gives
them the most gain. If a man gets out of the way of a moving car and lives he
gained his life. On a different level when a person takes a bribe to have more
money to feed their family. They believe he money gained is worth more than the
potential of losing their job or their reputation. If a person spends ample
time giving back to the homeless, spends their nights in nursing homes or helps
a wounded animal. The subcategory of pity could be used to describe that person's
reason for helping. The real driver is still self-gain. This person is gaining
a sense of enjoyment or accomplishment that cost less than what the feeling of
helping others is worth.
People work in their own self-interest
in anything they do. People want to gain something, if one person uses technology
to get ahead then other people will do what is in their interest. When England
used new ways of farming in the industrial revolution most people recognize the
two points of self-interest. Either; one, they will switch to the new technique
and get more crops, or two they will stick with tradition. In both cases the
person is doing what gives them the most gain. However at the end of the day
tradition falls to new techniques.
People are continually
progressing because of the benefit to them. Rousseau's idea that we are far
from our savagery cannot be further from the truth. From the beginning of man until
the end of time people will do what gives them the most for the least cost. We
are still in our most savage state even today.
We fight to demand higher ideals and foster understanding of commerce to
get the edges we need to become the best we can. People today are not moving from
savagery. Savagery has gotten a new name, has formed a new shape, and now sings
a different tune. The savages of this world are simply different but we still follow
with our basic need to fulfill our self-interests.
You make an interesting point arguing that it is selfishness that drives people to do what they want. To counter your argument, I do think it is self-preservation and pity that drive one's actions in a state of nature. When a man jumps out of the way of a moving car, he is doing so out of instinct to preserve his life, not for some sort of personal gain. Those who spend time volunteering at nursing homes or animal shelters are doing so out of pity, they feel sorry for those in need and thus feel obligated to help, the feeling of joy and satisfaction as a result of helping are not the determining factor of those actions in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteRousseau's concept of pity is interesting. He describes it as follows: "Pity is what carries us without reflection to the aid of those we see suffering. Pity is what, in the state of nature, takes the place of laws, mores, and virtue, with the advantage that no one is tempted to disobey its sweet voice. Pity is what will prevent every robust savage from robbing a weak child or an infirm old man of his hard-earned subsistence, if he himself expects to be able to find hi own someplace else...pity inspires all mean with another maxim of natural goodness" (392). In the first line he said it influences us to help people without reflection, supporting his argument that reason is bad and passion/natural instinct is superior. However, his example of pity preventing a person from stealing something from a child or the elderly seems to contradict the idea that it is "without reflection." If pity stops someone from stealing from a child, reason was still involved as the person reasoned that stealing was going to make the child sad. In order for the action to be completely primal pity, it would require the person to see the impact his actions had caused. However, in his example the person chose not to steal, because they imagined stealing would make the child sad. This example seems to make pity seem limiting, rather than uninhibited human nature.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe this example ties into the self-interested argument. A person chooses not to steal from a child or old man because they do not want to see them upset. It is for their benefit. It is not completely "natural goodness" as Rousseau describes. So although I do think pity plays a role, in that people do not want to make others feel bad because they do not want to feel bad for their actions, self-interest also plays a role.
As far as if this self-interest is still in its purest form today, I am unsure. Rather than just choosing not to steal from people, many also donate to charity and volunteer their time. It could be argued that people are still acting in their own self-interest when donating and volunteering, because it makes them feel good; and the individual quest for happiness seems to be a major theme in today's society. On the other hand, I can also think of many examples where people have sacrificed themselves for others. Parents often sacrifice their own interests for their children, and people choose jobs where they risk their lives for others on a regular basis. It becomes a little harder to explain these actions solely as self interest.
I see where you are coming from when you mention that people do things out of self-interest. However saying that people will “always” act in that manner seems a bit farfetched. I can’t begin to count the amount of times I’ve done things that did not benefit me what so ever while costing me quite a lot. But in general, it seems reasonable to assume people act out of their own self-interest more often than not.
ReplyDeleteI like how you mention various overlaps between self-preservation, pity and self-interest. The idea of helping others as an act of self-interest has always been an interesting matter to ponder.
Do you truly believe that tradition falls to new techniques every time? Are there no other factors to take into account? Look at agriculture in the US today and how trying to farm natural and organic has so many government regulations on it that serve as a huge road block to its success. You can also think of all the farmers in India that are committing suicide because of corporations like Monsanto that drive them to debt and provide them with faulty new technology. Or how Mexico loves their wide variety or corn for their traditional ways, and is constantly forced to fight the US from dumping GM corn into their country and destroying the native crops while putting their farmers out of business.
You keep mentioning that “we” are savages. But I do not believe this. Here is a quote from Rousseau on page 402 that I think helps explain what I am trying to say: “They all ran to chain themselves, in the belief that they secured their liberty, for although they had enough sense to realize the advantages of a political establishment, they did not have enough experience to foresee its dangers. Those most capable of anticipating the abuses were precisely those who counted on profiting from them…” This quote makes me think that there are most definitely different levels of “savages”, maybe if you think rather not “savages” but “sheep” and “wolves”. The distinctions between men can be just as important as the similarities when trying to better understand them and their actions.
Daniel you make a good case that people are self interested by nature. Research has shown that we are both self interested and cooperative by nature. Many people choose to devote there life to help others. In this instance they are not really getting anything out of it. If people did things entirely out of self interest than there wouldn't be people going over to third world countries to help those in need. It isn't entirely in your self interest to go over to areas that don't have the best condition and help.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you that people will be self interested into the end of time. Rousseau was writing at a time when conditions were harsh and people were cruel. As technology advances people will ultimately become less selfish in nature. Relative to a couple hundred years ago people are less savage.