There is the theory that all of mankind share one “Natural State”. This is a subconscious attitude and thought process that revolves around oneself. While even many people try to not be selfish it is much harder to control their thoughts. The underlying attitude of man has become one of self-preservation and selfishness that is prevalent through all societies and cultures. 

The idea of a natural state is most notably used by David Forster Wallace in his commencement speech “This is Water”. While commencement speeches tend to be about how great the graduates are, his speech drifted to a more depressing tone. The tone of the speech was dark and existential and it talked of all the work students had left. However, it was so odd, it stuck with people and many students took it to heart and strove to become more “decent” human beings. Which is surprisingly an easy thing to do, once you set your mind to it and go through the proper steps.

The most prevalent idea throughout “This is Water” is the idea that most people are selfish purely because they don’t think about the hundreds of people they see or interact with on a daily basis. Wallace gives the example of a tired man that has had a long day, unfortunately the man’s day is not over yet and he has to go to the grocery store before returning to his peaceful home and relaxing for a time before returning to the same havoc the next day. Going to the grocery store typically would not be a very stressful situation, however, the man’s situation of being fresh off work and going to the store specifically when it was crowded helped contribute to the stress of the situation. The man’s frustration was most notably directed towards the people he interacted with. The man only notices the people getting in his way and this is what is commonly shared between all people. The man doesn’t see annoying people in line on their phones as people, nor the older people that are walking a bit slower than others. He only sees them as inhibitors to his ultimate goal of getting home to rest. When in fact all these people are in fact people themselves and have their own lives and sets of problems unknown by him. One of the “annoying” people on the phone could be talking to a loved one that’s in the hospital for all he knows. When a person stops to think of the possibilities of why people are doing the things they do, then that person begins to feel a little less rushed and more considerate of those around him.

The counter argument is quite simple and optimistic. It’s simply that people are naturally unselfish and will seek out to help people. The evidence used is mostly the idea that people naturally form groups to help each grow and prosper. Also, it’s said that many people strive to become unselfish individuals and put forth and huge amount of work to achieve that goal. That is perfectly reasonable and can happen, but people do not realize the amount of time it takes for an individual to condition themselves to respond in an unselfish manner. It’s thought to be a pretty easy process to just go about being a less selfish individual. However, think of all the people that invoke feelings of frustration on a daily basis, actively realizing you’re becoming frustrated and trying to think of them as humans can become tedious and difficult. 

In a series of experimental social dilemmas various people were asked anonymously to decide to contribute money towards a bonus to their group, but the group would only get a bonus if enough people contributed (Caporael). This is an interesting dilemma and very relevant towards addressing the counter argument. The idea is yes, people can naturally put forth the effort to boost the general prowess of their group, however, they must be incentivized in some way. In the example aforementioned many people were willing to put forth their own money to boost the wellbeing of the group, but it was only when presented with the idea of a “bonus” that could benefit them personally. The argument is that people always group together and help each other out. That argument is invalid, not because it’s untrue. The argument is invalid because people group together for selfish reasons, not unselfish ones. Since the dawn of humanity, it has been extremely difficult for the human race to survive alone, due to everything from loneliness to the harshness of the wild. So, people don’t really group together to help others, it is more for self-preservation. 

Self-preservation is the most common motivator for humans when it comes to making decisions and what leads to that selfishness. In an article by Thomas Gnagey he states “At the deepest – some would say most primitive level of brain function, each human being is incontestably driven to preserve his own life” (Gnagey). This basically says that deep down in the human mind, people will do whatever it takes to preserve their own life. In this aspect, we are very similar to beasts of the wild. The key difference between ourselves and animals is that while violence tends to be the primary method for self-preservation for animals, it tends to be a more last resort solution for humankind. The point is that most humans are naturally extremely uncomfortable with violent situations. However, when presented with the life or death option most people will take the selfish, violent path in the hopes of self-preservation. Many people find this “thrilling” in the same aspect that people enjoy horror movies. According to an article by Sharon Begley “If we have a relatively calm, uneventful lifestyle, we seek out something that’s going to be exciting for us, because our nervous system requires periodic revving, just like a good muscular engine” (Begley). This is probably why the movie series SAW is so inherently popular. The premise behind the movies is that people are put in a position where they must do something horrible to themselves, or others, in the interest of preserving their own lives. Interestingly enough, people always hesitate in the movies when it comes to maiming themselves, however, they always seem to have to morale restraints when it comes to hurting someone else to save themselves. Something in the human mind makes it “all right if you have to”. In issues of self-preservation people often clear their morale conscious by telling themselves they really had no choice at the end of the day. Yes, it is a very depressing and conclusion, but these people do in fact have a choice. People wouldn’t think of that person as selfish under normal circumstances. However, in the hypothetical situation where a man is forced to kill another man to save himself. He doesn’t think of that man as another human being, he thinks of him as an obstacle that’s interfering with him getting to his home and relaxing at the end of the day. It’s no different from the man getting frustrated at the super market by the lady talking on her cell phone. While the man who lived will never even think of the possibility that he was being selfish and will likely never be told he was, the man who died also has a family that might beg to differ on the character of the living man. 

Being selfish is not necessarily a bad thing. In a post by Rolf Krake, he states “For her, the truly selfish person is a self-respecting, self-supporting human being who neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others” (Krake). The idea is that the people who are truly selfish are those that value themselves above all others, which is a consistent emotion shared by most human beings. All human beings have needs, both biological and psychological. The pursuit of these needs often interferes with a person’s journey to becoming a less selfish individual. This is purely because of the idea that if you have something, then someone else does not have that same item. A common example would be a competitive raise at the company you work for opening. The problem being that there is only one position but countless people who want the position. Striving to place yourself at a higher position with your company, building stronger relationships to move up even higher, and ultimately making a higher salary wouldn’t make you a bad person in the eyes of most people. However, you getting the position leaves many people in no worse of a place, but also not better off. This breeds a general discontent among the workforce towards you, even though your actions were not threaded with a single ounce of malice. When you get down to the brass tacks of the situation, really everyone is being a horrible human being in this situation besides you. Yes, you can be blamed for taking the job, but also it is selfish of those who didn’t get the position to hate you purely because you got something they did not. Suddenly you go from being a fellow coworker and possibly a friend to being one of the slow moving old people in the super market. Some blame can even be put on the big boss as his selfish desire to have another manager started the whole ordeal firstly. Ultimately, little can be done about the selfishness of others and little can be done about how others view you. Many generous people sense this abrupt change in the attitudes of his or her coworkers and begin to feel an astronomical amount of guilt for the pain they caused from really doing nothing morally wrong. These people often choose to resolve their morale dilemma by undergoing acts of charity. 

The most natural response when a person realizes they need to be a less selfish individual is to indulge in charitable acts. Often the act of giving is in itself a selfish act, because it does in fact give the giver a good feeling, a sense of pride in what they have done. In an essay by Lalin Anik he states “Giving feels good, so why not advertise the benefits of “self-interested giving,” allowing people to experience that good feeling while increasing contribution to charity at the same time?” (Anik). The authors of the essay are exploring the idea that doing charity will one day be advertised. This doesn’t seem like such a bad thing and that charity itself is not a bad thing because you’re helping someone as well as feeling good about yourself, so there really is no downside. While this may be true, there is also the underlying fact that people are lying to themselves about why they are doing it. According to the essay, several tests were administered to varying types of people in which charity was advertised to them. This made the people much less likely to do the charitable acts. It is worth noting that people are more than willing to do charitable acts when they fool themselves into thinking it is for the benefit of the less fortunate or for the betterment of humans than when they’re presented with the fact that it is for their own personal morale boost. This is also hugely selfish for people to completely forego doing something for the less fortunate only because their morality is put into question. It really is quite ironic that people will not do something considered quite morally sound only because it related to some slight selfishness. 

People are naturally a selfish race. Just like every other species we fight for survival and to live by any means necessary. The selfishness of our race can be interpreted in many ways and involves varying degrees. It is impossible for any human being to become completely unselfish because they would likely not be able to preserve themselves due to the unrealistic expectations they give themselves or the selfishness of the others around them. Many human beings will spend their whole lives being incredibly selfish, thinking of themselves as saints. While many good people will go through life feeling the guilt and thinking themselves as horrible people based on the thoughts and senseless blaming of others. The real only solution is for people to live how they see fit and to strive for what they believe is to be a truly unselfish character. 
