Are we susceptible to equating freedom and selfishness?

[Gerald Wilgus]

I came across an interesting discussion. "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." As usual, I use such for introspection and wonder at past behaviors where I evidently equated the two (freedom and selfishness). Under the guise of being myself I have acted irresponsibly, assuming that I need not countenance others, hurting them at times. Sometimes that came from a feeling of already being isolated which made my actions easier
for me.

I found out that some of what I did, being myself, only hampered my enjoyment of the world and some interesting people regardless of their neurology. Much I learned the hard way, that to achieve what I wanted meant revising my thinking to understand my responsibility to my community(s) and act accordingly. I just could not let it all hang out and be myself, come what may. Instead of frustration, I found a new sense of connection that let me share my interests with people and even helped with my career, letting me understand that in my work of product and production quality I ultimately answered to the people using those health care drugs and devices.

So, I am wondering what are the things that we do for the freedom of being ourselves that bleed into being selfish? How do I avoid that in the future?

 

[LadyS]

So, I am wondering what are the things that we do for the freedom of being ourselves that bleed into being selfish?

Just wanted to clarify, are you referring to being yourself in the autistic sense or just in general regardless of neurology?

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

Some of my evidently poor behaviors were due to my autism. But regardless, does the exhortation to be yourself ever excuse selfishness, especially when some of us may not have the perception to know the impact we have on others?

 

[watersprite]

does the exhortation to be yourself ever excuse selfishness, especially when some of us may not have the perception to know the impact we have on others?

It is a good question, for those who have the maturity & equanimity to consider it.
I have much to say about this but at present it is still too triggering to do so.

 

[SimonSays]

does the exhortation to be yourself ever excuse selfishness, especially when some of us may not have the perception to know the impact we have on others?

It is a good question.

It depends how you define selfishness. It is okay to be self-centred, to focus on self, to do right by yourself, to be honest with yourself, without intending to hurt anyone in the process. But sometimes people still get hurt. So it must be a question of intention and awareness.

If I know that my doing something is going to hurt you, and I still do it because I've decided that what I want matters more than my hurting you, that isn't freedom. I'm not free to be myself if I stop you from being yourself in the process.

Of course we might have a conversation about it, and you might come to understand I'm not meaning to be selfish, and I come to understand how my actions have affected you. That in itself can change much.

But I don't have a responsibility to ensure that what I do has no impact on anyone whatsoever. People can be offended by all sorts of things really easily and not realise that they need to look to themselves rather than to anyone else for the reason.

And as I said, there are different definitions of what constitutes selfishness, but it must be a fine balance between being who I am in the moment and doing what feels right, and knowing that everyone else is essentially attempting to do the same.

 

[LadyS]

Short answer: I think as long as you're not harming others or yourself, either directly or indirectly, you should have the freedom to be yourself. But also be prepared to accept any side consequences of doing so. Freedom is not without personal cost.

However I already know this question will get a barrage of different answers and perspectives, especially in the political sense which I won't go into (except when it comes to public health safety). Long answer might come later with more time to organize thoughts.

 

[LadyS]

Maybe I can pose another question: what do you value that you would be willing to sacrifice some personal freedom? Also vice versa, what are you willing to overlook in order to pursue that same freedom?

Maybe some examples of past occurrences might help? For example, I know people who value pursuing their obsessive interest or career over spending time with their family which can be rewarding in one sense but lacking in another. And vice versa. Or people who really could care less what others think and might be willing to sacrifice potential friendships in order to continue to be themselves. What's at the top of your personal priority list and is it worth it's value?

 

[Suzette]

An funny thing happened in the way to nirvana...

While I discovered my free will, I also discovered that others have agency and I need not attempt to be responsible for others happiness because no matter what they say, others are perfectly capable of being happy without my "help".

So I use my free will to deliberately choose to make ethical desicions. But sometimes our needs and the needs of others do not interesect. Unless my action will result in irrepriable harm I will choose to go forward. Not out of a sense of "freedom" but because I know I cannot live my life for others and, truly, I don't need to do so.

 

[Au Naturel]

This all bypasses the question of whether free will even exists. And the related question of whether it is possible for a human to do anything that is not selfish. Altruism may well be an illusion.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

Altruism may well be an illusion.

I have read about observing altruism in some populations which positively impacts reproductive fitness of the group, so I do not doubt that there is some aspect of that in the human population.

 

[Au Naturel]

I have read about observing altruism in some populations which positively impacts reproductive fitness of the group, so I do not doubt that there is some aspect of that in the human population.

Helping your species to survive can be viewed as just selfish genes at work.

https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1491514507

My feeling is that we are not the masters of our own destiny we'd like to think we are. People are very often driven on by impulses they don't understand and then manufacture explanations after the fact.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

Helping your species to survive can be viewed as just selfish genes at work.

https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1491514507

My feeling is that we are not the masters of our own destiny we'd like to think we are. People are very often driven on by impulses they don't understand and then manufacture explanations after the fact.

I have never been positive of Dawkins' thesis. The greatest driver of evolution is the environment, against which phenotypes are tested. These phenotypes are the result of interactions between many genes, some regulatory. The most fundamental in animals are the highly conserved homeobox genes that control cell differentiation and morphogenesis. They are recruited for all the different body plans animals exhibit. If there is any candidate for a selfish gene it is the homeobox, but its success is only as good as the body plan it creates that survives the environment.

 

[watersprite]

This book, by Sean Carroll, might discuss some of what you’re talking &/or wondering about.

His thoughts on his philosophy poetic naturalism are in there.

I’m not saying I agree with it, but the book is a worthwhile read.

David Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order, is excellent if you enjoy thinking about thinking.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

I came across an interesting discussion. "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." As usual, I use such for introspection and wonder at past behaviors where I evidently equated the two. Under the guise of being myself I have acted irresponsibly, assuming that I need not countenance others, hurting them at times. Sometimes that came from a feeling of already being isolated which made my actions easier
for me.

I found out that some of what I did, being myself, only hampered my enjoyment of the world and some interesting people regardless of their neurology. Much I learned the hard way, that to achieve what I wanted meant revising my thinking to understand my responsibility to my community(s) and act accordingly. I just could not let it all hang out and be myself, come what may. Instead of frustration, I found a new sense of connection that let me share my interests with people and even helped with my career, letting me understand that in my work of product and production quality I ultimately answered to the people using those health care drugs and devices.

So, I am wondering what are the things that we do for the freedom of being ourselves that bleed into being selfish? How do I avoid that in the future?

"...a moral justification for selfishness",...vs,...a moral justification for giving of oneself one's community. To me, it's not one or the other, but finding some balance of both. The far right conservative and the far left liberal are examples of, in my opinion, an imbalance. I think we, as a modern society, with social media, its associated computerized algorithms,...and laws and governmental regulations, have a problem in finding that balance. We spend far too much mental energy arguing over the extremes of either end of the spectrum when we should be calmly discussing how to achieve some degree of both,...rewarding both personal achievements,...and giving of one's self to others. If you're arguing over which is best "black" or "white",...you're both wrong,...because it's actually "gray".

"Freedom" and "rights" are nothing more than a construct of what a particular society says it is. Every country has different freedoms and rights. Sorry, despite popular opinion, there is no such thing as a "God given right",...not even to life, itself. Many countries past and present have proven this true.

As far as personally avoiding being swayed into selfish behavior and giving a helping hand to someone who is fully capable of taking care of themselves requires some perspective, context, nuance,...and intelligence to recognize how to modulate one's behavior.

As far as what we do for our own personal freedom that bleeds into selfishness,...I think that is highly individualized. Some highly politicized examples, though: Some children going to US public schools are wearing armor-plated backpacks and go through regular mass shooting drills. To those who are pro-2nd Amendment folks,...this is the cost of freedom. I want the freedom to own my guns, so you have to adapt your behavior to accommodate me. Another example: I am not going to get a vaccine or wear a mask during a worldwide pandemic, because it is my body, my choice, and my freedom,...so you have to adapt your behavior to accommodate me.

 

[Judge]

I came across an interesting discussion. "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Go directly to the heart of such a belief system in modern times. IMO, an eloquent plea for moral bankruptcy (not surprising) by an expatriot of Soviet Russia. For better or worse, it describes such a school of thought rather well.

Hedonism on steroids.

Google: Ayn Rand's Objectivism

 

[Au Naturel]

This book, by Sean Carroll, might discuss some of what you’re talking &/or wondering about.

His thoughts on his philosophy poetic naturalism are in there.

I’m not saying I agree with it, but the book is a worthwhile read.

David Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order, is excellent if you enjoy thinking about thinking.

Poetic naturalism sounds very interesting.