Are We Naturally Selfish and Greedy?

Another mental model that grew out of the definition of man as a rational animal is that human beings are self-centered and greedy by nature. According to this notion, human beings seek only to satisfy their own needs, motivated solely by personal interest.

Although many recognize the undesirability of these traits, they believe them to be inevitable due to human nature, not because of any scientific proof thereof, but based on the broad-based popularity of this assumption. Furthermore, many contemporary social institutions are organized around this myth of human egotism, which has served to strengthen this imaginary.

In economics, this mental model even has a name – homo economicus – that defines man as a being whose production and consumption is motivated entirely by his own material gain. This was the basis for the theory of ‘rational choice’, which affirms that ‘rational’ people will always choose what benefits them, even at the expense of others. However, what makes this choice seem natural to some cultures is not its rationality, but rather the fact that the process of acculturation and socialization from early childhood makes this their first reaction. People raised in other cultures will not necessarily have the same inclination.

The myth of selfish man enjoyed such widespread acceptance that it was not until the 1960s that scientists began analyzing its assumptions seriously. And they were surprised to find that such qualities as ‘empathy’ (being able to feel what others feel), ‘altruism’ (helping people in need with no hope of reward) and a broad range of ‘prosocial’ behaviors (sharing, helping, consoling, cooperating) are much more frequent than was formerly believed. Much psychological research has even shown that the development of such attitudes is a natural part of character formation in a normal person.

Newborn babies cannot distinguish clearly between themselves and others, but cry more intensely when hearing another baby crying. This shows an innate tendency to respond to the needs of others as if they were one's own. At one year, they show concern when someone else is hurt or sad. By the age of two, they can tell their own feelings from those of others, but still seek to console others who show signs of pain, and their empathic emotions are more complex. Older children are able to understand other people’s life conditions and tell whether their problems are acute or chronic, or whether they are caused by belonging to an oppressed group. An 8-year-old child described empathy as follows: “You forget what is in your own head, and you make their mind your mind. Then you know how they feel and how you can help them.”[1]

These studies conclude that the tendency to be concerned about others is just as natural in human beings as worrying about oneself. This does not mean that people are not capable of having self-centered, avaricious or even antisocial attitudes. Human beings can exhibit a broad range of behaviors, from the most selfish to the most altruistic, which demonstrates the cultural nature of any predominance of these traits. In fact, there are several factors that contribute to the development of such characteristics in a person. The living example and comments of parents and other loved ones have a powerful influence, as do the mass media.

Research has also shown that people in whom altruistic attitudes and prosocial orientation prevail tend to share various other characteristics. They see themselves as being more in control of their own lives, with less need for approval from others. They have a positive outlook on the human condition, are concerned for the welfare of others, and feel responsible for doing whatever they can for them. They are happy when others receive help, even when they themselves are not the ones providing it. Their empathy enables them to “put themselves in the shoes of others”, feel their pain as their own and see the world through their eyes. They experience a fundamental connection with all of humanity and are prompted by affection and compassion, even towards total strangers.

Nevertheless, the strength of mental models is such that some have tried to find selfish explanations for even the most prosocial acts. When seeing that people are willing to inconvenience themselves to help others, instead of accepting the logical interpretation that they do so out of love, they argue that their ‘selfish genes’ drove them to sacrifice themselves in order to ensure group survival. Evidently, the first interpretation is simpler, as it establishes a direct causal relationship, while the second is more entangled because it attempts to achieve the effects of love through the means of selfishness.

The popularity of the second interpretation is not due to scientific reasons, but to the fact that admitting the existence of love is not consistent with certain mental models of human nature. Consequently, a simple, direct explanation is rejected in favor of one that is convoluted, unlikely and impossible to prove. This goes against a basic scientific principle according to which, when explaining a given phenomenon, simpler theories should be preferred over more complicated ones.

In summary, there is no scientific proof to support the myth that human beings can be defined as necessarily selfish. Rather, research into this matter concludes that we are fully capable of sincere, selfless concern for the wellbeing of others. Whether we practice the one or the other depends partly on the way we were brought up and partly on our own decisions.

[1] Based on a quotation by Rollo May, cited by Alfie Kohn in No Contest, 1992, pp. 232-233.


For further information on this topic by the same author, click here.