We are drowning each other and ourselves in an ocean of moral judgments. A complete list of ‘offenses’ would fill up thousands and thousands of pages. Libraries and bookstores would need entire sections devoted to the topic.
It’s impossible to accurately calculate the percentage of us engaged in this increasingly popular ‘American pastime,’ so this essay reflects the impression one gets mostly from the media, in its many forms, while keeping in mind that one of our media’s primary ‘jobs’ is to rile up its audience.
They’ve done such a good job that the chances we can come to a national consensus about anything controversial seem very dim indeed. Since we need agreement and action more than ever, what follows is my attempt to present a road forward, and it hinges on how we define the three terms in the title.
First, I strongly disagree with Webster’s definition of ‘self-interest.’ For well over 50 years, I have held a very different view, with a totally different take on its ‘social meaning.’
During most of those 50+ years, I have participated in many activities designed to promote social justice of one sort or another. More recently, however, my interest has been captured by a more overriding concern, the survival of our species. So even though politics plays a central role in how one defines ‘self-interest,’ hopefully, we can share one, when discussing the future of all humanity.
Those 5 decades hammered several ‘truisms’ into my brain, and at or near the top of the list is the belief that selfishness and self-interest are opposites, not synonyms. The way I define the terms, being selfish will absolutely guarantee that you are working against your self-interest. Let’s take a look.
According to my definition of ‘self-interest,’ Webster’s dictionary erased its most powerful ‘message.’ That message has been at the heart of every popular movement since the founding of our country. It is the fundamental value upon which those struggles were built.
Beginning with Paul Revere’s “The British are coming!” right up until today’s increasingly frantic cries for some kind of change, “An injury to one is an injury to all!” or something similar has been a crucial part of the message. The goal is always the same - unity - no matter what the desired change is. Of course, the specific change desired alters who’s in the group that needs unity, but if the goal challenges the powers that be, it’s a must and depends on having a shared definition of ‘self-interest.’
No matter the exact wording, they all boil down to one meaning - the best (only) way to acquire what I ‘need’ is to join with others who are pursuing the same goal. Yes, there is strength in numbers, especially when struggling against the dominant forces in any society. If they simply provided for our needs, there would be no barriers to bulldoze through. Unity is a crucial element in determining any movement’s success or failure.
What about ‘selflessness?’ At first glance, it seems to be the ‘highest’ motivation, the complete opposite of selfishness. How can one be against Jane and John Does’ efforts to get a benefit to everyone? If they already enjoy the benefit, spreading it to everyone else is a positive, right? Doing so makes them candidates for sainthood, surely. Oops! There’s something missing.
Certainly, ‘sharing the wealth’ is a nice thing to do, but as soon as we begin picking and choosing - who will get that wealth, or how much, when, how, etc. - we lose the universality, the unity that promoting everyone’s self-interest requires. Making those decisions cannot help but lead to some form of ‘selfishness.’
Staying motivated by self-interest is the best insurance against allowing misleading and divisive impulses to distract us from our common goals. Hiding behind the virtue-signaling of selflessness plays into the hands of any ruling group, usually by accident. It promotes their age-old strategy of ‘divide and conquer.’
In 2024, the USA is facing several crises, from the risk of becoming a totalitarian State to the survival of our species, with many others sandwiched in between. They all compete for our attention, and attract very different groups of people. Even the movement for our survival, which one would think could unify all of us, has become a total mess. So far, its disunity has only caused more of the same.
The destruction of Earth, our only home, continues to be a completely apolitical endeavor. The driving forces of industrial civilization do not recognize petty labels like Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Nationalist, whatever. The devastation has been and remains bi-partisan, driven by the needs of the system. There is nothing ‘personal’ about it.
That undeniable fact presents us with what is probably the biggest obstacle to our survival, arriving at a common understanding of what’s at stake. Mother Earth doesn’t care how many billions you have. If you continue to ignore her Laws of Nature, you will be told, not asked, to leave the premises. We desperately need to reject Webster’s twisted definition of ‘self-interest.’ Peace.
*selfishness: noun
The quality or state of being selfish; exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness; that supreme self-love or self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness, without regarding those of others.
The quality of being selfish, the condition of putting one's own interests before those of others.
Stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others.
*self-interest: noun
Selfish or excessive regard for one's personal advantage or interest.
Personal advantage or interest.
Private interest; the interest or advantage of one's self.
*selflessness: noun
Quality or state of being selfless.
The quality or state of being selfless.
The quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others