self-interest

[robear]

My roommate is perhaps the most stubborn person I know. He is a very strong capitalist/conservative, and enjoys to debate with me. I've already corrected some of his basic misconception of communism, but he still claims it wouldn't work. It's practically impossible to change his thoughts, but I would still like to have some strong counterarguments.

Today he hammered the point of self-interest. Almost every choice is motivated by self-interest. He then gave a very crude example of eating. We have the choice of whether we eat or not. Because eating is in our self-interest, we eat. After that example he asked me why an individual would go through 8+ years of schooling to be a doctor without receiving any sort of compensation.

I responded that people would simply do things because they were interested in a particular field, or because they wanted to. I also reminded him that some people are motivated for the good of society. My roommate agreed that perhaps some people have that kind of motivation, but a majority do not. I also argued that greed is caused in a large part by society. My roommate agreed with this to a degree, but still felt self-interest is the main motivation for action.

How could I better counter my roommates argument, and what are your ideas toward self-interest?

[The Young Pioneer]

I struggle to answer this question in my social circles, as well. It IS a good point they make- that people work for their self-interest. Unfortunately most people can't look past the end of their nose to realize that the good of mankind IS in their self-interest. Pity. Indeed, it's difficult to express this to a close-minded individual.

But I think I can help you on one of your points.


Today he hammered the point of self-interest. Almost every choice is motivated by self-interest. He then gave a very crude example of eating. We have the choice of whether we eat or not. Because eating is in our self-interest, we eat. After that example he asked me why an individual would go through 8+ years of schooling to be a doctor without receiving any sort of compensation.

I responded that people would simply do things because they were interested in a particular field, or because they wanted to. I also reminded him that some people are motivated for the good of society.

This argument is usually taken up by people who haven't read Plato's Republic. Not that I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of a 3-class social structure ( ;) ), but the theme throughout argues that people have natural abilities for certain subjects and pursue that craft because it suits their talents.

I had someone once ask me in a similar line of argument why someone would work so hard to be a doctor if a garbage man is seen as his equal (real hardcore capitalist statement, eh?). I told him that both a doctor and a garbage collector do their job to maintain the health of the people. Without either, we could become sick. That shut him up good and well. :rolleyes:

[Black_Rose]

My roommate is perhaps the most stubborn person I know. He is a very strong capitalist/conservative, and enjoys to debate with me. I've already corrected some of his basic misconception of communism, but he still claims it wouldn't work. It's practically impossible to change his thoughts, but I would still like to have some strong counterarguments.

Today he hammered the point of self-interest. Almost every choice is motivated by self-interest. He then gave a very crude example of eating. We have the choice of whether we eat or not. Because eating is in our self-interest, we eat. After that example he asked me why an individual would go through 8+ years of schooling to be a doctor without receiving any sort of compensation.

I responded that people would simply do things because they were interested in a particular field, or because they wanted to. I also reminded him that some people are motivated for the good of society. My roommate agreed that perhaps some people have that kind of motivation, but a majority do not. I also argued that greed is caused in a large part by society. My roommate agreed with this to a degree, but still felt self-interest is the main motivation for action.

How could I better counter my roommates argument, and what are your ideas toward self-interest?


"We have the choice of whether we eat or not. Because eating is in our self-interest, we eat. "

No we don't... your interlocutor erroneously assumes that we have libertarian free will and that neuroendocrinology play little to no role in the regulation of appetite. The question expresses scientific ignorance, and that renders any philosophical point he was trying to make otiose. Ask yourself if people with Parder-Willi syndrome who eat compulsively have a choice when they overconsume food. The reason why they overconsume food is that their ghrelin levels are elevated; nothing to do with self-interest, choice, personal responsibility.

My decision to eat about 1200-1400 kcal a day and avoiding certain foods is largely motivated by my self-interest, enlightened by knowledge in biochemistry. My decision does not negatively impact the material interest of the proletariat and peasants of the world, at least not as grievously as the consumption decisions of other Americans. It does not prevent me from treating other people, especially those who are struggle to defray basic living expenses, with sympathy and amity and avoid any judgmental thoughts concerning their economic conditions (e.g. that they are unintelligent, lazy, didn't earn a degree in a marketable field, and socially inferior) instead of assigning culpability to the underlying economic system, although I still consider much of the American working class to be dupes, since the support an economic system that oppresses them and maintain that pernicious judgmental mentality that precludes solidarity with their fellow workers.



I would say it is acceptable to be selfish if you are still sympathetic and non-judgmental.

Even if doctor's salaries are merely 4.5 times of that of the lowest decile, I'm sure that many would still want to be doctors because they still earn the prestige of being a doctor (and presumably the state will finance their education, unlike in some Western countries). Also, people like athletes would still play if their the value of their contracts are cut in half (but I believe that most athletes "deserve" their salary within the context of the capitalist system, in the sense that the are producing value, and not the owners.)

In the DDR (East Germany), there were still doctors; the only catch was that the DDR prevented you from leaving the DDR. It wasn't that bad.



"[But] there's a great deal of insecurity; people are afraid for their existence, whether they're going to be able to make a living. . . .

"In the DDR, it was like a little dollhouse; you would get a job, you could make a living. A doctor in the hospital would make the same as a regular worker, so the social differences weren't so great. There was also a greater appreciation of labor. It didn't matter whether you went to university or not.http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/08/world/la-fg-berlin-wall-katrin8-2009nov08/2

[Tim Finnegan]

How does he define "self-interest"? Egoism does not have anything approaching a monopoly on the concept.

[Jose Gracchus]

Oh, this old Randroid bait-and-switch. Redefine "capitalism" to be "self-interest", and "self interest" to be "anything/everything humans do, because they are motivated to do it!" and QED, HUMAN-NESS = CAPITALISM.

These aren't the smartest folks. They think word-games and tautologies are profound.

[RedRevolution1938]

Worst argument ever. People sometimes do enter fields because of the pay but even more people enter fields because they are interested; this will become the sole case with the introduction of Communism.

A friend of mine told me she wanted to be a dentist... I asked her why and she said "because I love teeth" (true story)... she didn't say "Because the pay is good and I wanna be compensated for schooling that was totally my choice!". Also, education is available for all in Socialism, so there is no such thing as financial compensation.

Self interest does not even negate socialism, in fact, it makes it. It is in all of our self interests to abolish such a rigid system of wage slavery so that we can see to the free development of ourselves; we can live through each other by a system of self interest.

[Ocean Seal]

My roommate is perhaps the most stubborn person I know. He is a very strong capitalist/conservative, and enjoys to debate with me. I've already corrected some of his basic misconception of communism, but he still claims it wouldn't work. It's practically impossible to change his thoughts, but I would still like to have some strong counterarguments.

Today he hammered the point of self-interest. Almost every choice is motivated by self-interest. He then gave a very crude example of eating. We have the choice of whether we eat or not. Because eating is in our self-interest, we eat. After that example he asked me why an individual would go through 8+ years of schooling to be a doctor without receiving any sort of compensation.

I responded that people would simply do things because they were interested in a particular field, or because they wanted to. I also reminded him that some people are motivated for the good of society. My roommate agreed that perhaps some people have that kind of motivation, but a majority do not. I also argued that greed is caused in a large part by society. My roommate agreed with this to a degree, but still felt self-interest is the main motivation for action.

How could I better counter my roommates argument, and what are your ideas toward self-interest?

Socialism is not only about betting society as a whole from a humanist perspective, but it is in fact self-interest for the vast majority of society. Socialism is based on the model of working and being compensated for how hard you work. The difference is that under capitalism you can own property and gain from the labor of others. In socialism you can't own factories, large arable farmland, or businesses of other sorts. This prevents exploitation and the accumulation of capital, but it doesn't get in the way of motivation. If you want to work harder, you'll be compensated for your harder work. Now as for becoming a doctor. I don't understand why people wouldn't go through training to follow one of the more advanced positions. Especially with free education. Shit, I want to be a physicist (a profession that really isn't very well compensated for the education requirements), and I can tell you that there are many people who genuinely just want to study and better themselves as intellectuals. Look at Cuba. Do doctors earn more in the US than in Cuba? Yes, absolutely, but what are the ratios doctor:person in the US and Cuba?

US: 1:390
Cuba: 1:175

With improved education, we will have more useful professionals of all types under socialism. More engineers, more doctors, more scientists, more artists, the planned economy can give all of this.

[Misanthrope]

Today he hammered the point of self-interest. Almost every choice is motivated by self-interest. He then gave a very crude example of eating. We have the choice of whether we eat or not. Because eating is in our self-interest, we eat.

We don't choose to have the desire to eat, we are chemically inclined to have said desire. We evolved to enjoy eating as it's necessary to maintain life. Just like why sex feels good, if it felt bad we wouldn't have reproduction.

That's all beside the point. It is in the majority of society's (the worker's)
best interest to overthrow capitalist dictatorship. Communism (worker democracy) and liberation from wage slavery would insanely increase the standard of living. Capitalism and all other systems that involve the hoarding of wealth create poverty. Capitalism has failed.



After that example he asked me why an individual would go through 8+ years of schooling to be a doctor without receiving any sort of compensation. Education would be free and he would receive compensation. Again as you've stated, your roommate doesn't know shit about Marxism.






I responded that people would simply do things because they were interested in a particular field, or because they wanted to. I also reminded him that some people are motivated for the good of society.

That too. Capitalists view humans as scheming, greedy, manipulating animals but it's another sweeping generalization.


My roommate agreed that perhaps some people have that kind of motivation, but a majority do not.

So he has no argument but making a sweeping generalization.






I also argued that greed is caused in a large part by society. My roommate agreed with this to a degree, but still felt self-interest is the main motivation for action.



Yup. Human condition, in this sentence greed, is a result of socio-economic institution's affect on humanity.

Self-interest and greed are the same thing.

you're wasting your time with this guy.

[Charlie Watt]

Literally everything we do is motivated by self-interest on a very basic chemical level, including altruism, so I fail to see the point of your friend's argument.

It may also be worth mentioning that greed is heavily exacerbated by social conditioning, although if he is that way inclined, he'll probably write that off as conspiracy theory, in spite the evidence being all around us, at all times.

[robear]

Thanks for the comments everybody. You all made some really awesome points. At work today, I was talking with my anarchist friend for a while about the whole "self interest" thing. We both agreed that the eating example was pretty stupid. Anyways, we both kind of came to this conclusion:

According to my roommate, the reason a person would go through the 8+ years of school to become a doctor (or any other occupation) is because he gets paid more/can blow his money on more useless luxuries. However, this is not the only reason somebody chooses to go to school as mentioned above. There are many other reasons and factors.
In a communist society, this motivation would cease to exist, because capital/wealth no longer exist. Moreover, everybody's basic needs are met. In society today we are constantly worrying about our future, and how we will make ends meet. Under communism we would no longer have this great burden. People would be able to think more freely and explore their areas of interest. With the elimination of wealth, people will find more constructive reasons to pursue a career of interest.

Anyways, thanks again for the great comments! This roommate I mentioned is a great friend of mine, and I really appreciate the discussions we have. It causes me to think, and search more deeply within myself as well as learn more about the wonderful system of communism.

[Marxaveli]

Literally everything we do is motivated by self-interest on a very basic chemical level, including altruism, so I fail to see the point of your friend's argument.

It may also be worth mentioning that greed is ENTIRELY exacerbated by social conditioning, although if he is that way inclined, he'll probably write that off as conspiracy theory, in spite the evidence being all around us, at all times.

Fixed.

[Charlie Watt]

Cheers.

[hatzel]

Fixed.


Cheers.

Or not cheers; it was much better how you wrote it yourself. To claim that greed is entirely the result of social conditioning (i.e. that greed would not exist in the absence of society, and that a society could be created in which greed could be entirely eliminated) is utterly ludicrous. Not least because it does nothing to explain how greed-promoting societies could emerge when these phantom 'pure and angelic altruists' come together; society and the process of socialisation cannot create in the individual hitherto unknown human characteristics, rather individual and social change and development is merely the reapplication of the already-existing.

[Charlie Watt]

It depends how you describe greed though, whether as an emotional response or a permanent mode of thought. While it would ridiculous to suggest that we don't have a covetous aspect to our psyche, the kind of avarice that we're conditioned toward is much more ingrained and constant.

[Black_Rose]

In a communist society, this motivation would cease to exist, because capital/wealth no longer exist. Moreover, everybody's basic needs are met. In society today we are constantly worrying about our future, and how we will make ends meet. Under communism we would no longer have this great burden. People would be able to think more freely and explore their areas of interest. With the elimination of wealth, people will find more constructive reasons to pursue a career of interest.

Anyways, thanks again for the great comments! This roommate I mentioned is a great friend of mine, and I really appreciate the discussions we have. It causes me to think, and search more deeply within myself as well as learn more about the wonderful system of communism.

I love this clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzqW0YaN2ho

The challenge (and motivation) [within a communist society] is to improve yourself, to enrich yourself.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

tell him "we have the ability to starve ourselves, or we have the ability to work"

"Each according to their need, Each according to their ability" if they choose not to work or contribute to society in some way, then i dont see why they should have food.

this sounds stalinist, but i mean after the revolution, after the vanguard serves its purpose, and after capitalism falls

[Charlie Watt]

It seems like such a simple realisation too, particularly as the method through which we are usually remunerated, fiat currency, is worthless, and often never comes into physical contact with its recipient, so much financial transaction taking place with cards these days. Why the fuck would working for imaginary figures be more attractive than working for self-fulfillment?

[robear]

That was such an awesome video Black Rose. I'm not a Star Trek fan, but I must admit that was really good.

[dodger]

I don't know whether the phrase !progressive self interest" resonates? Maybe helpful in starting out on the road to a more positive view of oneself and the world at large. I have enough problem doing my own thinking....balls to doing thinking for others. You could of course start a fire in the room, whilst he is asleep, wake him up and get yourselves to safety, perhaps retrieving his favourite teddy bear, Whilst in a state of shock, hence receptive to stimuli ....tell him straight that you could have saved yourself but instead put aside personal interests and rescued him and Teddy. If he turns round and says he would not have tried to save YOU...well then you know he is despicable capitalist roader. Change rooms before he drags you down to his level....that's my advice.

On reflection you could tell him about British Blood Transfusion Service. Donation voluntary, cup of tea and biscuits....yer get it back when yer needs it....FREE. What could be more simple....and they test for certain disorders too, so a bonus. Been working like that for many a long decade......to everybody's complete satisfaction.