Is being polite greedy?

[oniman7]

I got to thinking the other day, and I was reflecting upon how people are polite. On the surface it seems normal, but then I questioned why. I thought to myself that often times, being polite and giving things up would get us killed before we were completely civilized ( yes, I do believe that we were, at some point, uncivilized beings, not necessarily apes though. I'm not necessarily religious or atheistic. Please try to keep religion out of this ). As I was saying. Before we were civilized human beings, what would politeness get us? Well, I can only think of one logical explanation. I think that it is a built in survival mechanism for humans. Think about it. You give what you have excess of, and because of the built in mechanism that they also have, they will want to return the favor when you need something. It's kind of like, you have a couple deer carcasses laying around in your cave ( bear with me here ). You notice another "person" starving, and you give them some meat. This is in hopes that, if you are in the same position, they will do the same for you, thereby helping increase your chances of survival. This tells me that everything we do is for greed, or very close to it. What are your thoughts?

[guitarboy]

Wait, what? Your saying that people are polite as a survival mechanism, like we expect something in return? If it was a survival mechanism, I think it would be the need to make allies, less enemies. I would give a starving person food and money, and never expect to see them again, much less them give me something in return/if i was in that position. It depends on the person, their morals, etc.

[oniman7]

Maybe in current times, it would depend on the person. However, every instinct that we have has a reason to it ( in my opinion ). I think that being polite may have stemmed from this survival mechanism, and evolved into what it is now.

[guitarboy]

But what exactly do you think the survival mechanism is for? Getting something in return, or making allies?

[oniman7]

It could be either, it could be a combination, or it could be a completely different reason. I think your explanation works too.

[juroara]

it's not a survival mechanism, its an evolutionary mechanism that has propelled mankind above and beyond what any other animal on earth has done our evolution is no longer about the survival of the fittest. our evolution is mutual. Its about the human race as a whole evolving. And the qualities that society praises are the qualities that keep this mutual evolution ticking. . . .kindness, politeness, love, affection, compassion... this type of evolution has us come TOGETHER. the inventor can invent a computer because he doesn't have to worry about hunting his own food. if he had to hunt and gather his own food, he wouldn't have the energy to invent coming together, asks us to be self sacrificing. the rougher the times, the more we praise self sacrifice. why we praise our sons and daughters who go to war. qualities and actions that go against our mutual evolution are the usual things that society frowns on. from murder, to vanity, to apathy to laziness sure we side track from our evolutionary path. we take advantage of each other. and the power elite will do anything to only benefit themselves. such as creating slavery. and other times we take our ideas of the whole to such extremes that we create taboos. but sameness is actually AGAINST the whole. we NEED people to be DIFFERENT, to think outside the box. mankind has always conceived of this magical place, or this magical time when we can all live in mutual peace, and have abundance. Call it the Golden Age, Heaven, Utopia, it has many names. were not there yet. but were still dreaming of it. This mutual state of perfection has been the drive of human evolution so this is where our politeness comes from. not from personal greed that what you do to another will be done onto you - but from a long evolutionary path that has taught us we NEED to look after each other. Because we are apart of a community. Not an individual going at it alone!! and yes, the whole means everyone AND yourself. so yourself is included in the picture. don't forget that.. when you understand that you are apart of the whole, helping the whole benefits you. But this doesn't mean receiving what you gave. It doesn't mean receiving the same piece of meat that you gave to a starving man. If we were all just passing along the same piece of meat over and over again, there is actually NO GAIN. NO GAIN. When you really understand how this all really works - when you help another not only is there a gain, but you gain MORE. MORE. the gain is exponential. which is why we can evolve and go far beyond when we come together - not stay in the same spot forever. Greed is the opposite. Greed is an action that only benefits you and detracts from others. And since it detracts from others, you eventually lose out, because as much as you like to imagine you're not apart of the whole, YOU ARE. If the whole loses out, YOU LOSE OUT. This is why the richest people can suddenly lose all of their money. Their gain was of greed and did not benefit the working class. And when the working class eventually lost out, the rich lost with them. This is what is happening to our economy. And any other economy that thinks it can benefit from TAKING from others.

[Oneironaut Zero]

We had another thread about altruism that kind of touched on the same subject. Personally, I think that both reasons for helping someone else exist (both the ultimately selfish and the unselfish). What I find more interesting is the personal explanations people give themselves as to why people are giving (I think that people that are more apt to saying that giving is ultimately selfish are, ultimately, selfish themselves). I believe there are some people that are polite just because they feel it is the right thing to do. They feel a sense of community with others, and feel compelled to treat them as their brother/sister. Now, no matter what someone's philosophy may be, they may feel that the world works in a way that rewards those who are good to others. Even with such a thing being brought to light, though, you have to ask yourself which came first: the willingness to do something polite because you want to promote benevolence and unselfishness, or the idea that - in doing something polite - you might expect something later on down the road, as sort of a karmic retribution. I believe that one could significantly argue either side, but I also believe that both perspectives truly exist. Are family members (usually) benevolent toward each other because they expect something in return? Or is it because they are family, and they honestly feel that family should look out for one another? Even if they are not directly getting something back from that family member, does helping out your brother or sister (simply because they are your brother or sister) mean that you are only doing it because you expect them to pay you back for it? I don't think so. I've done plenty of stuff for people I've never expected anything back from...and, often, I was right to assume I would get nothing, which is fine. One might then argue that "oh, it's just the feeling of doing something gratifying which makes your actions selfish. You do it because you want to feel like you've done something great!" and I still disagree with that (to a point, of course. There are exceptions). I think that the good feeling is a byproduct of doing something generous (for many people, not for all) - that one can only expect to feel good after doing something they feel is the right thing to do. I doubt that that good feeling (or some hardly-recognized retribution) is the only reason people do benevolent things.

[CoLd BlooDed]

Since when does politeness mean giving things to other people? If anything that would go under the word generous or charitable. If I'm wrong please correct me, I always thought politeness was please and thank you, standing and sitting with a positive posture, chewing with your mouth closed...

[DuB]

I wouldn't interpret this as "greed" (or "politeness" either, really), but I see what you're getting at. First, it's useful to distinguish between proximate explanations of behavior and ultimate explanations of behavior. Proximate causes are the immediate, tangible causes of behavior. For example, a proximate explanation for why we like to have sex is because it feels really good. Ultimate causes, on the other hand, are concerned with how the behavior is evolutionarily adaptive. An ultimate explanation for why we like to have sex is because organisms that enjoy sex tended to have more sex and thus were more likely to pass on their genes. Note that as far as the organism is concerned, the proximate explanation is the "real reason" why it engages in a given behavior. That a given behavior (altruism in our case) is evolutionarily adaptive is irrelevant to the organism. It only does it for the proximate reasons (e.g., social norms, it feels good to give, etc.). The bottom line here is that it is not greedy or selfish to be charitable or generous because these are not the motives that drive the behavior (typically, anyway ). An interesting, related question is how a behavior that doesn't seem to personally benefit an organism could have evolved through natural selection. There are a number of theories which address this paradox. You've already touched on one, which is that altruism tends to be reciprocated, so organisms that are generous to others are likely to receive help when they most need it and are therefore ultimately more successful in living to pass on their genes. An even more interesting (IMHO) way to look at the altruism paradox is by considering the concept of inclusive fitness. When you get down to it, it's our genetic material that is propagating itself through the generations. From an evolutionary standpoint, our bodies can be viewed as large, fancy vehicles for our DNA. Family members share a certain proportion of our genetic material: 50% for siblings and children, 25% for nephews, nieces, and grandchildren, etc. While an organism's individual fitness refers only its own ability to pass on its genes, inclusive fitness takes into the fitness of kin who share the organism's genes. If a certain altruistic act causes harm or even death to the organism (loss of individual fitness) but increases the fitness of kin (which share the organism's genes), the result could be a net gain in inclusive fitness, and this would result in this behavior being selected for as advantageous from the perspective of the genes. An evolutionary biologist once joked that he would truly give his life for more than 2 brothers or more than 4 nephews . This does a satisfactory job of explaining altruism towards kin, but what about relative strangers? The important point to consider here is that in our environment of evolutionary adaptedness, we didn't form large societies like we do today. Rather, our groups could be likened to "tribes" or at best "villages," with local populations in the dozens rather than thousands. In this environment, the chances of a "stranger" being at least distantly related to yourself and therefore sharing some of your genetic material was very high. This environment would (and did, apparently) lead to altruistic acts being generally favored. But to return to the original point, that altruism tends to be adaptive is irrelevant to whether or not it is selfish. It is our motives for helping (proximate causes) that determine if a given act is driven by selfishness of selflessness.

[Unelias]

Wow. I have never thought it that way. But for me being polite is a basic social trait and it is one of the few things that I try to keep when facing humans. I dislike unpolite people in general. Was it Winston Churchill who said : "If you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite"? The only survival mechanism I can think of as being polite, is that you act polite under the eyes of the stronger so you get to have your head on your shoulders.

[illidan]

I think people are polite because they expect other people to be polite to them in return. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Although this phrase is not always true it is generally the case. Being polite is a way to minimize dislike towards oneself from other people. Of course there are some people who will dislike you no matter how polite you are, but those people are usually a minority.

[Unelias]

Yeh, something like that. But I think it is like this : I will try and be polite, no matter how unpolite others are, because respect and politeness towards each other is the foundations of any relationship. So at least I am aiming to strong foundation with my actions.

[illidan]

I agree. It's all about minimizing the foundation for hate and maximizing the foundation for friends, allies and good relationships. It's a successful strategy for surviving in the human social sphere.

[Adam24]

Psychological egoism may interest you. It is the idea that not matter what we do it is ultimatly selfish because deep down all humans are driven by there own selfish needs. There's a famous story of Abraham linken who stopped his coach to rescue some drowning dogs. When later questioned he told peopel that he saved the dogs not purely for the sake of being selfless or moral, but beacuse he would not be able to live with the guilt. There's also the idea of social contract theory. This is that when we enter into a society we enter into an unwritten contract. There are many variatiosn and views on it but bascially its that you should do what you want done unto your self and that most of the time people follow this. You can get really deep into this stuff tho and there are arguments for and against

[Bonsay]

People are polite because if they aren't, they might get kicked out of the "clan" and would die for some reason or the other. People are social beings, it's what makes humanity evolve. That's why social anxiety exists. I would really like to be able to make a fool of myself on a stage in front of hundreds of people and not care about it. But I can hardly have a normal speech in front of thirty. It's natural. If I make a fool of myself people will throw me on the street and then you die in the winter. It's a social survival mechanism. It's there for a reason. You connect this sort of "politeness" to a "selfish" desire to survive. I don't get it. If there are two major things life in general is about, it is about survival and reproduction. Where does greed fit in. If I copy a definition from the internet: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves Apparently objective "laws of life" don't fit too well with human ideals. Not surprised. So yes, trying to survive is greedy. Politeness, fits into the same category. Just don't make a big deal out of it. All natural animal behavior is like that. We just make a big deal out of it because we view ourselves above nature. Which is ironic.

[oniman7]

What I meant to say wasn't so much giving, as that was just an example. For example, maybe being polite and reasonable to somebody. They might remember that and give you the same in return, making it easier for both of you to get what you want. I also agree with a lot of the other posts in this thread. Maybe it isn't greed so much as trying to survive. I wish I could change the title of this thread to make it fit more.

[oniman7]

Psychological egoism may interest you. It is the idea that not matter what we do it is ultimatly selfish because deep down all humans are driven by there own selfish needs. There's a famous story of Abraham linken who stopped his coach to rescue some drowning dogs. When later questioned he told peopel that he saved the dogs not purely for the sake of being selfless or moral, but beacuse he would not be able to live with the guilt. There's also the idea of social contract theory. This is that when we enter into a society we enter into an unwritten contract. There are many variatiosn and views on it but bascially its that you should do what you want done unto your self and that most of the time people follow this. You can get really deep into this stuff tho and there are arguments for and against By the way, I don't want any heated arguments, flaming, etc. I'd prefer you even not criticize somebody based on what they say. The philosophy forum is here to toss ideas and thoughts around. I don't mind debate.

[Abra]

You notice another "person" starving, and you give them some meat. This is in hopes that, if you are in the same position, they will do the same for you, thereby helping increase your chances of survival. This tells me that everything we do is for greed, or very close to it. What are your thoughts? You seem to be combining evolution theory of altruism and karma theory of altruism. There are many other reasons that people perform acts of altruism, too (empathy and sympathy, for instance). Different theories can explain different situations. But let's try this. Take the paragraph I quoted, and put the word "I" wherever there is "you" or "we." Does that really describe you, oniman?

[Sornaensis]

it's not a survival mechanism, its an evolutionary mechanism that has propelled mankind above and beyond what any other animal on earth has done Please back that up. Humans are one of MANY social primates and all exhibit similar traits of societies, with, erm, 'politeness' as one of them. Evolution is the changing of a population of organisms over time, it has billions of driving forces. Humans are metacognizant and have a complex systems of do's and don't's, the result of which is society and enemies and allies. Politeness and rudeness. Things that are intimidating, and things that aren't. Politeness isn't hereditary, it's psychological. Learned. Just like morals, rules, laws, how to act around other people, how to drive a car, and almost everything we do.

[Universal Mind]

But what exactly do you think the survival mechanism is for? Getting something in return, or making allies? Politeness often results from conscience, which is a very helpful mechanism for a human population to survive. However, politeness is also often a selfish facade that wins allies and power. Watch Bill Clinton talk and ask yourself why he is being so fake.

[Adam24]

By the way, I don't want any heated arguments, flaming, etc. I'd prefer you even not criticize somebody based on what they say. The philosophy forum is here to toss ideas and thoughts around. I don't mind debate. Did i insult you? Sorry if i did. Perhaps i didn't explain what i was trying to say every well. Im a first year philosophy student at college, those two theoires i mentioned are just things ive learned that i thought you might be interested in.

[oniman7]

Did i insult you? Sorry if i did. Perhaps i didn't explain what i was trying to say every well. Im a first year philosophy student at college, those two theoires i mentioned are just things ive learned that i thought you might be interested in. No, I didn't insult you. Somebody used the word arguing, and that reminded me of it. I just quoted that person ( maybe you ) because I felt like it.

[oniman7]

You seem to be combining evolution theory of altruism and karma theory of altruism. There are many other reasons that people perform acts of altruism, too (empathy and sympathy, for instance). Different theories can explain different situations. But let's try this. Take the paragraph I quoted, and put the word "I" wherever there is "you" or "we." Does that really describe you, oniman? While it may not describe me consciously, it may be the way my sub-conscious has learned to work. Say that it is psychologically learned... Where would it originally come from then?

[Jeff777]

I got to thinking the other day, and I was reflecting upon how people are polite. On the surface it seems normal, but then I questioned why. I thought to myself that often times, being polite and giving things up would get us killed before we were completely civilized ( yes, I do believe that we were, at some point, uncivilized beings, not necessarily apes though. I'm not necessarily religious or atheistic. Please try to keep religion out of this ). As I was saying. Before we were civilized human beings, what would politeness get us? Well, I can only think of one logical explanation. I think that it is a built in survival mechanism for humans. Think about it. You give what you have excess of, and because of the built in mechanism that they also have, they will want to return the favor when you need something. It's kind of like, you have a couple deer carcasses laying around in your cave ( bear with me here ). You notice another "person" starving, and you give them some meat. This is in hopes that, if you are in the same position, they will do the same for you, thereby helping increase your chances of survival. This tells me that everything we do is for greed, or very close to it. What are your thoughts? Yes being polite is greedy...because being selfish is so much more noble.

[oniman7]

That's not what I meant. You can leave if you don't want to take it seriously.