Human Nature and the journey towards sustainable happiness

The underpinning to all philosophical theories, economic models, and political treatises is the eternal question, ‘What is human nature?’ The age-old interpretation of this question was then, ‘Are human beings born good or bad?’ But this developed over time into a range of more objective propositions, as the notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ became recognizably subjective across time and space. Instead of trying to unravel if human beings were born good or bad, people started to attempt breaking down human motivations and actions into the simplest components, much like how the study of physics has sought to break down matter into atoms, and so on and forth. So the question evolved into, ‘What is the basic human trait, if there is any?’

The trait that subsequently received widespread acceptance was that of selfishness. Before it would go on to be brilliantly ‘scientifically-proven’ through Richard Dawkins and his ‘Selfish Gene’, the ‘selfish trait’ had already formed the foundations of ‘invisible hand economics’ and the utilitarianism theories. Leading on from this single underpinning, any model of happiness rested on the emancipation of the human selfishness.

However, a divergent school emerged as well from this, and projected themselves in direct opposite to the ‘selfish school’. For simplicity purposes, this will be called the ‘selfless school’. This school articulated that there was something in humans that attracted them towards ‘a greater good’. ‘No man is an island’ would perhaps be the best adage to understand this. The main proposition of all parties that diverged from this group was that ‘the human self would only gain true emancipation through the move away from selfishness to selflessness.’ The ‘selfish trait’ was an artificial façade that had prevented human beings from realizing their true ‘selfness nature’.

I have a different proposition. The reason why previous theories have all underpinned on either the selfish or selfless trait is because these two traits have been assumed to be mutually exclusive, on the different ends of the same spectrum. A more in-depth observation and questioning of human intentions and motives however, leads me to believe that both the selfish and selfless trait are the fundamental components of human nature, and that they act as two separate spectrums within a single human self. On the larger scale, it is the constant interaction between these two spectrums that leads to evolution of the human self and society. But on a more personal level, it is the constant struggle of these two traits that makes the human self such an enigmatic thing even to himself.

To slightly complicate matters though, there is a third ‘pseudo-trait’, that of self-esteem (ie. the way human beings view their own ability). To illustrate all this, I will use an analogy that I hope can set everyone looking deeper into their intentions and getting closer to understand the human self. This is the ‘Bread Analogy’. Imagine it is war time, and food is scarce if any, you see an old person lying by the road, in desperate hunger. You have had little to eat as well, but obviously are in better shape than the old person. On you, you have a single last piece of bread. Will you give it to the old person? Will you keep it for yourself? Or will you give a portion of it away?

Under the influence of the selfish trait, you will keep it for yourself. Under the influence of the selfless trait, you will give it all or a portion of it to the old person. Ultimately, one trait in you will take precedence over the other, and you will act on it. However, there is a third factor which may work on some of us, that of self-esteem. This is the ‘pseudo-trait’ which more often than not, decides which trait wins. If you have very high-esteem, and are self-assured that you will be able to find another piece of bread even after giving this one away, it will be easier for you to come to the decision to give the bread away. If you have low self-esteem, then no matter how much your selflessness trait works on you, your selfishness trait will prevail.

Different individuals are born with different levels of the three traits, and their experiences in society will further develop these three traits simultaneously. The immediate assumption made by most this point, under the influence of the ‘selfish-selfless single spectrum model’ will be that, a person with very high selfish level must then have a correspondingly low selfless level. And precisely because of the ‘selfish-selfless single spectrum model influence’, that would truly be the case in most people. However, it need not be so. A person can be very selfish, and can also be very selfless. How? An artist can be very selfish with his artwork, but almost selfless with his money. A factory worker can be very selfish with his money, but almost selfless with the component part he has contributed to making. The ‘pseudo-trait’ of self-esteem is what makes the difference; how one values oneself are what differentiates when one is selfish and when one is not. Therefore, humans can find emancipation of both their selfish and selfless nature, just through separate avenues! The artist finds selfish emancipation in his artwork, which he values his self-esteem on, but finds selfless emancipation in his money which he does not value his self-esteem on. The factory worker finds selfish emancipation in his accumulation of money which he values in self-esteem on, but finds selfless emancipation in his contribution of the component part to the final product.

So, and we must always come back to this for the discussion of human nature to seem to make any point at all, what does all this mean for human happiness? This means that human happiness is a complicated thing because it is not only the emancipation of either the selfish or selfless trait. It is the balancing act between the selfishness and selflessness trait! But it is only now that I reach the key of the whole article: this balancing act is a completely internal function. It cannot be dictated or aided by any political or economical theory which seeks to maximize anything! Ultimately, any political or economic theory that seeks to maximize the selfish or selfless trait will be unable to bring about sustainable happiness. To maximize something, you never actually need to know how much of it you actually have, you simply attempt to get more of it, and so it makes it still possible for an external party to help you get more. But to balance two things, you need to know the relative level of one to the other first before anything else, and there is no external party that can help you with that! The process of balancing is one of constant self-discovery and self-understanding; it is only this that is the true emancipation of human nature!

Every individual is born with different levels of the same traits. But do not let that misguide us into thinking that we are the same and should be chasing the same things. Chasing and maximizing is always the easy part, the hard part is the balancing between two chasing traits. If we want to be happy, nobody can help us but ourselves first. We cannot let someone else tell us or influence us with what we need for us to be happy, we must dig for it within ourselves. The role of the state then is to aid this emancipation of self-discovery, and not dictate it.


(Footnote: just to clarify. My personal impression is that currently, with the prevalent political and economic models lopsidedly tilting towards selfish emancipation, the general direction will be first to tilt it back towards the selfless model. But as I try to point out, ultimately, it is up to every single individual to balance it within himself.)