Add Bookmark | Recommend this book | Back to the book page | My bookshelf | Mobile Reading

Free Web Novel,Novel online - All in oicq.net -> Wuxia -> I have a small world

Text Chapter 1583 Selfishness

Previous page        Return to Catalog        Next page

    "Pingping, Jingjing, for me, your safety is the most important. As long as I can guarantee your safety, I am willing to pay any price. That's why the words I just said sound so inconsistent. ¡Ê  ¡â" Zhao Chaogang explained. He clearly knew why Li Liping and Liu Jingjing had such confused expressions on their faces. This was all because of the inconsistency in his words. Therefore, in order to explain clearly, Zhao Chaogang confessed directly.  The reason.  Zhao Chaogang's words sound very selfish. As long as Li Liping and Liu Jingjing are safe, Zhao Chaogang doesn't care about anything else. These words are selfish, but this is also a reasonable thing. Everyone in the world is selfish, but selfish  It¡¯s just different degrees.  "Selfish" means "self" refers to oneself; "selfish" means for oneself.  The construct "selfishness" is usually included in "self-centeredness".  The biggest difference between the two is that selfishness means that when an individual faces a conflict between his own interests and the other party, he will ignore the losses of the other party and focus on satisfying his own interests. In addition, selfish people can usually be aware that their actions may harm others while performing selfish behaviors.  and the interests of others, but still do whatever it takes to follow their own interests.  Selfishness has been around since ancient times.  During the Warring States Period, there was a handsome man named Zou Ji from the State of Qi. One day another handsome man named Xu Gong came to visit. After Xu Gong left, Zou Ji asked his wife, concubine, and guests respectively which one was more handsome, him or Xu Gong. All three of them agreed.  He said that Zou Ji was good-looking.  Zou Ji knew that Mr. Xu was more handsome than him. After thinking about it alone, he thought that his wife favored him, his concubine was afraid of him, and his guests wanted something from him. None of them told the truth.  It's because they all have selfish thoughts.  ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????mbOUT?     Selfish.  It is a concept that is used frequently.  A concept is not easy to define just because people often use it.  As a research, how can we define it more scientifically to summarize all its essential characteristics?  In the book "The New Synthesis", American scholar Wilson even described the gene, the most basic unit of life, as "selfish".  By extension, Wilson uses the concept of "selfishness", a grass competes with another grass for nutrients, a bird eats a bug, a cat eats a mouse, a dog competes with another dog for a bone, and a person eats pork.  , eat grains.  These are all manifestations of "selfishness".  Although Wilson also admitted that genes are neither conscious nor emotional.  In fact, Wilson collectively calls any "objective behavior" that is beneficial to itself at the expense of other organisms as "selfish".  The meaning in which Wilson uses the concept of selfishness is his own business, but for the convenience of research, the concept of selfishness is limited to the relationship between people in human society.  "Selfishness, as one of human attributes, is an extensive and complex social phenomenon that can be expressed as human objective behavior.  It can also be expressed as people's subjective consciousness, concepts, and motivations.  Due to the unity of human consciousness and behavior, selfishness can refer to both behavior and concepts; and because human behavior and consciousness may be disconnected, separated in space and time, or appear in the form of contradictions.  It can also refer to behavior or concepts alone.  So, how to define selfishness from the perspective of subjective consciousness?  Or should we define selfishness in terms of objective behavior?  As long as it is something, it will be selfish. Some people focus on defining selfishness from the perspective of objective behavior and its effects. They believe that "selfishness refers to the behavior of people to satisfy their own interests at the expense of harming the interests of others and society."  In other words, selfishness is an objective behavior that benefits oneself at the expense of others.  This definition is called "the objective definition of selfish behavior." This definition is in line with people's habit of focusing on the effects of behavior in moral evaluations.  Moreover, many people use the concept of selfishness on many occasions in the sense of behavior that benefits themselves at the expense of others.  but.  This definition falls short of simplicity.  First of all, according to the definition, a person can be called selfish only when he actually exhibits behavior that benefits himself at the expense of others.  If a person does not act to benefit himself at the expense of others, he is not selfish.  However, as we all know, just as a person can have the consciousness and motivation to commit a crime, but it does not necessarily mean that he or she will actually perform criminal behavior, a person who has the consciousness of harming others and benefiting himself does not necessarily actually perform the behavior of harming others and benefiting himself.  This is because: 1. Motivation and consciousness guide the generation of behavior, and there is still a process during it.  Before the process is completed, one kind of motivation or consciousness may have changed or disappeared and been replaced by another consciousness or motivation; 2. One kind of motivation or consciousness may still exist, but due to the constraints of the external environment, or due to another consciousness or motivation  Inhibition, the consciousness and motivation temporarily do not guide the generation of behavior and are latent.  Therefore, a person does not behave in a way that benefits himself at the expense of others, but this does not mean that he does not necessarily have the consciousness and motivation to benefit himself at the expense of others.  Because of the objective behaviorThe definition of "wei" does not include this situation, and when explaining some phenomena, it appears stiff and far-fetched.  For example, a person may not benefit himself at the expense of others in one matter, but may benefit himself at the expense of others in another matter.  According to the definition of objective behavior, it can only be explained in this way: he changed from unselfish to selfish.  But in fact, there are two situations here: one is that the change in objective behavior is the result of corresponding changes in motivation and consciousness; the other is that although the behavior changes, the motivation does not change, and the motivation always exists and is continuous.  It is reasonable to explain the first situation according to the objective definition of behavior, but it is obviously inappropriate to explain the second situation.  Secondly, if the concept of selfishness is used in the strict sense of "benefiting oneself at the expense of others", then when someone is in trouble and refuses to help or to die, such behavior cannot be called selfish.  Because the actor neither harms others nor benefits himself, in fact, people call this behavior selfish without exception, and such actors are called selfish people.  What is particularly important is that when the objective effect of a person's behavior is to benefit oneself and others (reciprocity), is the person selfish?  According to the definition of objective behavior, it cannot be called selfish.  The objective behavioral effects of benefiting oneself and others are often the result of the subjective motivation of "for me" (of course there are other situations).  When someone performs behavior that is objectively beneficial to others and society, the "altruist" is likely to obtain corresponding rewards from others and society.  "His good behavior is a sophisticated move. In essence, it is for the benefit of himself and his relatives." The concept and motivation are selfish.  Precisely because it is "for the benefit of myself and my relatives", so.  If his good behavior (altruism) does not enable him to obtain from the other party what he thinks is the corresponding reward, or less than what he thinks is the corresponding reward.  Then it can be expected that his good behavior will disappear or decrease. If he can get corresponding rewards, his good behavior will continue to be performed.  Although this kind of behavior cannot be called selfish in a static sense only from the perspective of behavioral effects (benefiting oneself and benefiting others), but from a dynamic sense, from the perspective of subjective consciousness and motivation.  It's called selfishness for good reason.  From this point of view, defining selfishness only from the perspective of objective behavior takes into account the unity of behavioral motives, but does not pay attention to the contradiction and possibility of disconnection in concepts and behaviors, so it does not summarize all the ways people use the concept of selfishness.  The connotation, therefore, has considerable limitations.  How to define selfishness in terms of subjective consciousness and motivation?  Undoubtedly, there is a basis for defining selfishness from the perspective of subjective consciousness: 1. Only people have distinct consciousness (of course in a relative sense), so it is defined from the perspective of subjective consciousness.  Human selfishness can be well distinguished from the "selfishness" (instinct) of other animals.  Moreover, this is in line with the purpose of studying selfishness only in humans; Second, defining selfishness from the perspective of subjective consciousness and motivation makes it easier to understand selfishness and people from a dynamic perspective.  Thereby avoiding the limitations of the objective definition of behavior; 3. Motivation and consciousness are more powerful than the behavior itself. The logic is: under normal circumstances, human behavior is always conscious behavior.  If consciousness and motivation can be truly eliminated, the behavior itself can be eliminated at the same time.  But eliminating behavior does not mean eliminating consciousness and motivation.  And as long as the motivation and consciousness still exist, it can re-produce the eliminated behavior.  Therefore, selfishness is defined as: when a person has an interest relationship with others or society, he first considers his own interests more than others. When a person believes that there is no conflict between his own interests and those of others, this motivation to consider his own interests  It can guide behaviors that are objectively beneficial to others and self-interest; when people think that their own interests are in conflict with the interests of others and society, the motivation to consider their own interests manifests as sacrificing the interests of others and society to safeguard and develop their own interests.  the behavior of.  ¡° Such a definition of selfishness may still not summarize all the essential characteristics of people¡¯s use of this concept.  But one thing is certain, the concept of selfishness must be understood from multiple angles, at multiple levels, and dynamically.  To this end, it is necessary to combine the research on people's subjective consciousness, motivation and objective behavior.  As psychologists say, "Every human behavior is based on conditions that are beneficial to oneself, otherwise there will be no motivation at all."  Maybe some people don¡¯t agree with this view and think that there are still selfless people.  Yes, altruistic behavior is selfless, and sacrificing oneself for others is also selfless. Maybe you will say: "For the person involved, all behaviors are selfish. Although they are not material selfishness, they are spiritual selfishness." You are right.  , from the perspective of the actor, he sincerely wants the other person¡¯s good and performs altruistic behaviors in order to satisfy his own wishes. However, these are subjective ideological activities of the actor. The public does not care about these at all. They only care about what has already happened.  DiscoverThe objective fact of ? is that the actor has performed an altruistic act and his behavior is selfless.  ??Things entangled in the subjective are idealistic, and returning to the objective is the right way, so we cannot say that human nature is selfish.  Selfishness exists, and selflessness also exists. Here is a way that you may be able to defeat selfishness: set yourself a lofty ideal and great goal, let yourself consider long-term interests in everything, and let yourself be dismissive of the petty interests in front of you.  People¡¯s interests have two poles, one is the interests of individuals, and the other is the interests of mankind as a whole.  Therefore, selfishness and selflessness can be divided into two poles. One pole is the concept and behavior for the benefit of a single person, which can be called "absolute selfishness"; the other pole is the behavior and concept for the benefit of all mankind, which can be called "absolute selfishness".  "Selfless." In the "middle zone" between the two extremes, those concepts and behaviors that are for the benefit of friends, family, groups, factions, localities, nations, and countries can be called selfless or selfish.  It all depends on what kind of interest relationship is used as a reference.  It's just that public and private are relative and can be divided into levels.  Selfishness can also be divided into levels. This is the second meaning of the relativity of selfishness.  ?For example: A mother acts for the benefit of her son.  You can sacrifice everything you have, even if your son's behavior is anti-social.  In terms of the interest relationship between mother and son, the mother is selfless, but in terms of the interest relationship between the mother and son, society and others, the mother is selfish.  Understanding the relativity of selfishness has very important implications for answering the question of whether selfishness exists as a human being or is a product of human development to a certain stage.  One theory holds that people in ancient society (early and middle period of primitive society) were not selfish.  Since the level of productivity determines the public ownership of the means of production and joint labor, individual interests are always dissolved in collective interests.  Individual members living in this era have no personal interests at all and always put collective interests above personal interests.  Individuals are willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the group or the interests of other members.  However, thinkers and theorists who hold this theory use the historical knowledge they have learned about this era to tell people that groups (clan, tribes, tribal alliances) living in that era will also compete for hunting grounds,  Conflicts occurred in pastoral areas, etc., that is.  On the one hand, there is no conflict of interest between individuals within the group, but on the other hand, there is a conflict of interest between groups.  How to explain two different phenomena?  Question: There is no ¡°for me¡± conflict of interest within a group, but there is a ¡°for us¡± conflict of interest between groups. ? It must be "for my own benefit" (individual) to be called "selfish".  "For the benefit of us" (the group) cannot be called selfish, or can only be called "selfless", then.  When individual members of fascist groups in modern society sacrifice their personal lives for the benefit of their group, (such as the kamikaze team members in Japan), can we not call these fascists selfish?  or.  Do we still have to call them selfless?  The above phenomenon can be well explained by the relativity of selfishness, in terms of the interest relationship between individuals and groups.  Sacrificing oneself for the benefit of the group is selfless; in terms of the interest relationship between individuals, groups and groups, this kind of individual behavior is selfish.  Not only is ¡°for me¡± selfish, but ¡°for us¡± can also be selfish.  It is precisely because of this that concepts such as "group self-interest" and "national self-interest" can be used.  If the above analysis is tenable, then even if there were no personal interests or conflicts of interest within ancient groups (this issue will be discussed later), just looking at the conflicts of interests between groups, selfishness is something that has existed since ancient times and is not a development.  Products that have reached a certain stage.  The interests of any individual or group with others or another group always have both realistic unity and realistic contradiction.  The reason for unity is that any individual or group has the realistic possibility of obtaining greater benefits when cooperating with others or other groups than when they act alone.  Furthermore, the reality of obtaining greater benefits may be based on the objective basis of the superiority of division of labor and the fact that the overall strength is greater than the simple sum of the partial strengths.  Understanding this is the key to understanding how selfishness can lead people to cooperate and achieve objective results that benefit both oneself and others (reciprocity).  The reason why it is contradictory lies in people's lustful impulses, greed, and relative scarcity of human wealth and interests (physical and social). Moreover, this kind of physical and social lust is a constant.  cannot always be effectively suppressed.  Therefore, conflicts are inevitable.  Mahatma Gandhi said: "According to everyone's needs, things are enough, but according to everyone's greed, it is not enough." The "greed" he said refers to living by??Need-based social impulse.  For example: As far as personal physiological needs are concerned, each person has several pairs of shoes that can protect the feet, facilitate walking, and can be replaced. Shoes are enough, but if shoes are worn to pursue a beautiful spiritual enjoyment, it is for  If you show that your social status is superior to others, you will be like Mrs. Mascos in the Monkey Kingdom, who has three thousand pairs of shoes and is still not enough.  Since people's interests are unified, then, act according to the principle of unity of interests, start from the interests of oneself or the group, use altruism as a means, and finally achieve the goal of self-interest, and have the objective effect of both self-interest and altruism.  The idea that this behavior creates.  The author calls this "reasonable selfishness."  People¡¯s interests are contradictory, then.  Acting according to the principle of contradiction is not only based on the interests of oneself or the group.  In addition, the author calls the behavior that harms and sacrifices the interests of others and society as a means to achieve self-interest at the expense of others and the concepts that guide such behavior as "malignant selfishness."  People¡¯s interests can be divided into immediate interests and long-term interests.  Correspondingly, human selfishness can be divided into "near selfishness" and "far selfishness".  Consciousness and behavior for the immediate benefit of an individual or a group can be called near-selfishness; in contrast, consciousness and behavior for the long-term benefit of an individual or a group can be regarded as far-selfish.  People¡¯s intelligence and cunning, as well as the complexity of their interests, are one of the most important reasons.  That is, people can sacrifice immediate interests for long-term interests.  People pursue the greatest interests, but this greatest interest is from the overall and long-term perspective, and obtaining the overall and long-term greatest interests often requires the sacrifice of immediate and local interests.  "If you want to take it, you must first give it to it; if you want to take it with plums, you must first throw it with peaches."  In order to benefit oneself, one can benefit others first, and benefit oneself in order to harm others.  People can also be altruistic first. These two types of behaviors, in a static sense, start from the same behavior.  Even looking at a series of behaviors, it is easy to be confused with "selfless altruism."  So, far from the concept of selfishness.  It is very important to grasp and understand people's interest relationships in a dynamic sense.  Let everyone take a look at the "cake theory": as far as a cake has been produced.  It must be that the more the capitalists get, the less the workers get; and vice versa.  The more the workers get, the less the capitalists get. This cannot be changed by anyone's will.  However, the distribution of this quantity of cake can cause changes in the quantity of the next cake produced.  Capitalists have understood through repeated practice that if he gets too much and the workers get too little in the distribution of the existing cake, then because this distribution will dampen the workers' enthusiasm for production, the next cake may not be produced as much.  Smaller, which means that in the next distribution of the cake, if the capitalists will not get less than last time, at least it will be difficult for them to get more.  On the contrary, if he distributes relatively less this time and distributes relatively more to the workers, it will stimulate the workers' enthusiasm for production and produce a bigger cake next time. In this way, the workers may receive more than last time, and the capitalists will also  Share more.  People pursue the greatest interests, while capitalists pursue the total profit of the total product. He understands "one five gets five", but he also understands "two four gets eight".  Therefore, rather than saying that capitalists have changed from selfish to less selfish, we would rather say that they have changed from nearly selfish to far selfish.  Of course, the above analysis omits some things, and the actual situation is far more complicated, but this is the basic truth.  The view that the interests of workers and capitalists are fundamentally opposed can only make sense in a static sense, that is, in terms of the distribution of a rationed pie.  From a dynamic sense, looking at the distribution of a series of cakes, it is better to say that the interests of workers and capitalists are unified.  If the interests of capitalists and workers are only contradictory but not unified, it is absolutely impossible for the capitalist system to exist for hundreds of years and still develop.  Corresponding to the division of selfishness is the division of human morality: As mentioned earlier, people's moral behaviors and concepts can be roughly divided into three types: a. benefiting oneself at the expense of others; b. benefiting oneself and benefiting others; c. sacrificing oneself and benefiting others.  In terms of the relative amounts of three different moralities, concepts and behaviors, people can be divided into three moral types: a. Vicious and selfish people; b. Reasonable selfish people; c. Selfless people.  Malignant selfish people are more likely to behave in ways that benefit themselves at the expense of others. People who hold malignant selfishness not only consider their own interests first, but also often attempt to seize the interests of others to satisfy their own personal interests.  That's what they do when they get the chance.  From petty theft and fraud, to murder and robbery, to grand larceny.  They have less sympathy and conscience. In their philosophy of life, people are just like wolves and wolves, but in the real world, there are more wolves and less meat. Therefore, there is only one rule: the weak eat the strong.  The so-called conscience, morality, etc. are all deceptive.  Although in many cases, they??Putting these beautiful and wonderful words on your lips is just a cover, used to deceive and plunder the interests of others and society more cleverly and conveniently.  If the evil and selfish people do not rob or infringe on the interests of others or society, it is often the result of fear of others and the power of society. They are afraid that "if they fail to steal a chicken, they will have one of their legs broken." They abide by moral laws.  But a donkey obeys the whip.  Vicious selfish people are the source of disaster for society, generally.  They are only a minority in society.  A rational and selfish person¡¯s first consideration in social life is his own interests.  "Can it bring me benefits?" is the starting point for most of their actions.  However, compared with malignant selfish people, rational selfish people are generally opposed to benefiting themselves at the expense of others, "live for yourself and let others live." They demand their own interests, but are often willing to use legitimate means (that is, what is allowed by general moral standards) to satisfy it.  ¡°Compared with vicious selfish people, they have more compassion and conscience, and are more likely to behave altruistically; but compared with selfless people, they are less willing to make sacrifices for others and society.  A reasonably selfish person is a "good person" in the ordinary sense.  But generally speaking, it cannot be said to be "sublime".  Reasonable selfish people are the majority, or even the vast majority, of society, and they are the basic factor of social stability.  Because they account for the largest proportion, they are also the largest force driving society forward.  Selfless people show more altruistic behavior and have noble moral character.  It is easier for them to make sacrifices for the benefit of the country and the people.  Many of them, for the benefit of others, the country, and the nation, sacrificed their most precious lives for the benefit of others, and their names will go down in history and shine for thousands of years.  As long as all humans don¡¯t go crazy.  Selfless people will always occupy the highest moral position in human history. They are immortal.  Unfortunately, so far, selfless people have never made up the majority in human society.  What makes them stand out is, in a sense, precisely because there are so few of them.  Although mankind has consumed countless manpower and material resources in order to be like this kind of people.  But this still does not make them a "majority" - this in itself may be enough to explain the problem.  A purely empirical description of three types of people.  It is undoubtedly very rough, but the general outline should be correct.  It should be pointed out that none of the three types of people are "pure".  There is neither a purely evil selfish person, nor a purely rational selfish person, nor a selfless person.  If people can indeed transform themselves and be transformed by the environment, then individuals as individuals must have the three possibilities of becoming evil selfish people, rational selfish people, or selfless people.  Therefore, it is undeniable that the three types of people are not fixed and can transform into each other and in fact are transforming into each other.  A person who was once a thief can also be transformed into a hero who sacrifices himself for the benefit of others and society; some "old revolutionaries" who have risked their lives to fight for the interests of the people can also be transformed into  There is no need to discuss this in detail, as experience has repeatedly proved this. ? Next, let¡¯s talk specifically about the idea that there is no such thing as a purely selfless person.  The reason why I want to talk about this issue is because some people have created and continue to create a myth, saying that there is a kind of people who have reached such a moral state that they always use the interests of others and others under any circumstances¡ª¡ª  The interests of the people are the most important thing. No matter when and where they are, they are willing to sacrifice their own interests to safeguard the interests of others and the people.  They are not seeking fame or profit. They are dedicated to the revolution and the people.  The happiness of others, the people, and the liberation of mankind are their only goals in life.  In short, these people have no "personal interests" at all and are purely selfless people.  This view, in addition to believing that it mistakenly states political agitation slogans as an objective fact, can only be regarded as an out-and-out myth - because it cannot find any  It cannot be proved by facts and cannot withstand any logical analysis.  Theorists who hold this view, when they look through human history and search every corner of the world, can they find anyone who is willing to sacrifice their own interests and even lives under any circumstances to meet the needs and happiness of others?  people?  The ability of a person to exist as an individual in the relationship between people lies first in the fact that people exist for themselves.  For individuals, existing purely for others essentially denies the necessity and possibility of human beings existing as individuals.  If there is no desire, the possession of wealth will naturally not occur, so there is no need to be selfish; if there is no advanced consciousness unique to humans, then "human selfishness" is no different from the "selfishness" of other creatures; if wealth is relatively  There are infinite demands on human beings, and (like air) there is no question of selfishness or not, becauseThat will rule out whether to occupy more or less, or to occupy first or second.  It is necessary for me to occupy or for others to occupy; if it is not in a relationship of interest with others or other groups, it does not matter whether it is selfish or not. ? Human emotions can be divided into two levels: physiological emotions and social emotions.  The former is the foundation, and the latter is the extension and development of the former.  Physiological desire is based on the instinct of individual survival and racial continuation.  It is the result of life itself, a natural attribute.  Social security is based on the development and enjoyment needs of individuals and groups, and is a social attribute.  Social security is closely related to the level of human productivity and the development of culture.  In a certain sense, social development can be seen as being determined by the development of productive forces and culture.  Although the social attributes of human beings are a sign that humans are different from or higher than other animals, the emergence and existence of natural attributes and social attributes are inconceivable.  Just as without the instinct of sex, the love between men and women that is unique to human beings would never be possible. Therefore, in this sense, natural attributes are the more essential things of human beings.  Moreover, social attributes do not generally negate natural attributes.  ?Compare selfishness (egoism) to a rushing river.  It is compared to the extremely powerful atomic energy.  Big rivers can provide humans with drinking water, convenient transportation, irrigation of fertile fields, power generation, etc., and bring various benefits to humans. The source of human civilization is all closely connected with rivers. It can be said that there are no rivers.  There are no humans.  ¡°However, it is it that has caused many disasters to mankind.  When it floods, it breaks down the dams.  Flooding fertile fields, houses, livestock, even swallowing people, destroying everything it can destroy.  Atomic energy can provide mankind with huge energy.  It can serve various causes of mankind, but the atomic bomb lurks to destroy the earth.  The great danger of burying mankind!  The key to the problem is human control and control.  Are there attempts to eliminate rivers because of the disasters they cause to humans?  Are we refusing to apply this great invention because of the huge potential dangers of atomic energy?  A smart realist would answer this way: eliminate or control the disasters caused by rivers and atomic energy, and retain and exploit their advantages.     As the saying goes.  This is why you don¡¯t throw the child away with the dirty water.  The responsibility of mankind and the development of civilization lies not in the elimination of selfishness, but in the rational cultivation, guidance, and control of selfishness, and giving full play to the beneficial role of selfishness, the deep innate psychological power of human society, so as to continuously promote the progress of society and continuously  Perfect human beings themselves.  What needs to be controlled and eliminated is vicious selfishness. People who try to deny selfishness indiscriminately are just like fools who throw away children with dirty water.  They repeatedly emphasized that doing things for me and us may always lead to disregard for others and harm to others.  This is not wrong.  Just as as long as rivers exist, people may drown, and as long as modern transportation exists, people may die in traffic accidents. As long as selfishness exists, there may be objective effects that benefit oneself at the expense of others.  However, due to human control, rivers may not drown people, and people may not die in traffic accidents. Selfishness may not bring about the objective effect of harming others and benefiting oneself. However, the theory of denying selfishness indiscriminately lies in  They fail to see the realistic possibility that selfishness determined by the unity of human interests can lead to objective effects that benefit oneself and others.  Yes, observing real life, every objective behavior that harms others and benefits oneself, if traced to the root cause, is nothing more than the result of "selfishness".  However, this does not mean that all selfishness guides behavior that benefits oneself at the expense of others.  People may rely on their own reason, conscience, and moral restraint, as well as the control and influence of the external environment, to restrain selfishness within a reasonable range in order to achieve objective results that benefit themselves and others.  We must understand and remember the basic fact that "people's interests and the interests of others have a realistic and objective unity." However, those who deny general selfishness only pay attention to and emphasize the connection between general selfishness and the transformation of malignant selfishness.  When it comes to rivers and atomic energy, they are the same as they may turn into disasters for humans. Unfortunately, the difference between the two is ignored, and the ability of humans to control and eliminate the disasters they bring and take advantage of their superiority is ignored.  Therefore, it is one-sided, wrong, and does not work in reality.  One of the specific conclusions: Economically, if it is true that people generally first consider their own interests or the interests of the group, then the economic system should conform to this reality.  When people engage in economic activities, they should closely link their economic activities with their material interests.  The hook is reflected in two aspects: when a person works better and more effectively than others, he should make more profits; when his work is worse, he should make less profits, or make no profits, or even lose money.  Regarding this point, people have become more sober from the painful lessons of the failure of the "big pot rice experiment" in which hundreds of millions of people participated. The emergence of reforms is clear.??.  Specific conclusion two: How to let people control the power of politics to serve the public interests well, and at the same time prevent them from using the power in their hands to infringe the interests of the public. This is one of the core issues of political science, and it is also the core issue of all reasonable politics.  problems that must be addressed by the system.  If everyone has selfish elements and elements, and has the tendency and possibility to benefit himself at the expense of others, then no one can be allowed to engage in political corruption, no one can be allowed to have absolute power, but no one's power must be restrained and restricted.  .  Therefore, understanding people¡¯s selfishness provides a more substantial theoretical basis for opposing tyranny and dictatorship.  Selfishness is a social attribute based on human nature.  After analyzing why people are selfish, the problem of the history and eternity of selfishness seems to be easily solved.  Since selfishness has existed since ancient times and exists as long as human beings exist, there is every reason to speculate that it will exist forever.  Former U.S. President Nixon said: "Idealists long to see a world without conflict, in which all differences between countries are overcome, all ambitions are given up, and all aggressive or selfish  Impulses have been replaced by the good deeds of individuals and countries. However, such a world has not existed in the past and will not appear in the future." Engels said that humans evolved from the animal world.  It is destined that he will never be able to completely get rid of his animal nature, but can only get rid of it to a certain extent. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What is the ¡°animal nature¡± that Ges is referring to?  The author speculates that this "animal nature" must include the element of "people infringing on the interests of others."  Since there is an element of "violating the interests of others", this means that there must be "selfishness".  Of course, there is a logic that makes many people hesitate to speculate on the future, especially the eternal future, that is: what can explain the past may not necessarily explain the present; what can explain the past and present may not necessarily explain the future.  What about the ¡°eternal future¡±?  Selfishness is historical.  This is in terms of its specific content.  In ancient times, people would have conflicts over extremely limited food, and would fight to the death over a beast corpse.  With the development of productivity and culture, these specific contents may completely change.  Human beings compete for interests in a more advanced form. People in developing countries compete for a bicycle and a black and white TV, while people in developed countries compete for cars, limousines, airplanes, yachts, and villas.  To sum up, several conclusions drawn from the above discussion indicate that selfishness has both negative and positive objective effects.  It is incorrect to generally say that it is the source of all evil, or that it is the source of all good.  In this case, selfishness cannot be generally denied. What should be denied is vicious selfishness.  Reasonable selfishness should and must be affirmed.  In the most popular language, we cannot generally object to "for ourselves" or "for us".  In fact, human society is constantly moving forward driven by individuals and groups' reasonable self-interest and self-interest.  This is the deepest and most fundamental psychological driving force for the advancement of human society. It is difficult to imagine what kind of human beings and what kind of human society would be without this kind of psychological driving force.  Leaving aside the specific content of "for me" and "for us", it is understandable and natural to assume that this is just a tendency.  Because people always exist in the form of individuals and groups.  As a human being, we need to survive, develop, and enjoy.  (To be continued, please search Piaotian Literature, the novel will be better and updated faster! PS: Note: Thank you Xie Zhixiu for your big reward support, thank you!
Didn't finish reading? Add this book to your favoritesI'm a member and bookmarked this chapterCopy the address of this book and recommend it to your friends for pointsChapter error? Click here to report