Humans Are Selfish By Nature. Discuss.

Humans atomic number 18 Selfish By Nature. Discuss.Humans are selfish by character is a generalisation which is both refuted and supported by religions and moral codes around the world. However, from my experience as a learner, I believe that the validity of this statement is subjective, a matter of in-person interpretation as with many other ethical and moral issues in our lives. I have selected Christianity and Scientology to illustrate two major(ip) perspectives on this, and I believe they sess both be considered to validate this quote, although in very contrasting ways.The first discrepancy of this statement arises when we consider what is meant by the word, selfish. According to the Collins dictionary, to be selfish is to be unduly concerned with ad hominem profit or pleasure1. Already this is a subjective matter, because who decides what floor of personal regard is unduly, or excessive, and and then considered selfish? The alternative collectpoint exists in the Webster 1913 dictionary where selfishness is expound as believingthe chief motives of human action are derived from extol of self2. This definition can be considered to reflect a more positive opinion, because love of self implies general respect for mavins well being, alternatively of egotism. I believe that in our society we are generally expected to withdraw the word of control to be an appropriate way of finding truth, but the variations between these two authoritative ancestors make me motion whether or not it is the most effective way of finding truth about selfishness. Is it right therefore, to solely accept what one reads in a chemistry textbook as concrete fact? I believe such inconsistencies should encourage us to ask questions as learners, because it is always possible that an authoritative, educational source might be mistakenAnother way of finding truth about this is through faith. Are humans selfish, in light of either definition, as a result of nature? If we are to ac cept the Collins definition of the word and apply it to Christianity, then I believe the answer is yes. Selfishness is mentioned in The discussion as being a false way of obtaining wisdom or truth, in imprinting believers that where you haveselfish ambition, there you impart find disorder and every other evil practicebecause such wisdom does not come use up from heaven but isof the devil3. This implies that selfishness is not only a trait of mankind, but rather a sinful way of knowing instead of obtaining truth through God, or faith, and serving others. Thus, the validity of the statement, humans are selfish by nature, in terms of Christianity comes down to are people sinners by nature? For believers, The Bible also provides the answer to this just as sin entered the world through one man, and terminal through sinin this way death came to all men, because all sinned4. This informs followers that we are all born as sinners, and thus by faith in The Bible and the belief that sel fishness is a sin, humans are indeed selfish by nature. Even the most selfless or perhaps godly of acts can be considered selfish. For example, if I was to complete my service hours for CAS purely for my personal ambition of completing the IB diploma, I would actually be considered selfish and thus sinful, because I am applying wisdomof the devil.If this is true for the Collins definition of selfish, then what did Webster mean by, love of self? According to L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, it means to maintain boldness in selfbecause what is true for you is what you have observed yourself5. This code thus asks its believers not to find truth by faith, but rather through personal perception. This teaching can be considered selfish according the Webster definition, or even by the Collins definition if someone else perceives this personal regard to be unduly, as everyones truth is different and no consideration is given to anyone elses perspective. But is this principle selfis h by nature or nurture? This can be answered in some form through young children, because they very often act as a result of nature, or instinct, as opposed to developed habits6. For example, when I was about four years old, the ball I was playing with roll onto my road. My first instinct was not to check for cars, but to retrieve the ball because that was the only object I was able to perceive at the time. By nature, I believed there was no risk because I sour that the ball, which was of utmost importance to me in that instance, was equally as significant for everyone else. It was only when I learned from my parents, figures of authority, that it is flagitious to cross the road without looking that I began to inquiry myself. This shows I naturally had a selfish view of the world because of my own biased perception, and it is only when perceived authoritative figures offer an alternative perspective that we doubt ourselves. Hubbard believes that nurturing this self-doubt, and in this context selflessness, means you have lost everything, because you no longer respect your own personal perception of the world. However, I believe that if we did not have the ability to consider other peoples perspectives then we would be blinded by our own self-importance, and of course unable to write TOK essays which attempt to consider more than one viewpointThrough exploring these alternate perspectives, we can see that even acts of service can be vista selfish based on intent in Christianity, whereas in Scientology selfishness might simply mean confidence in self. However, despite their differences, both moral codes validate that humans can be considered selfish by nature regardless of how one acts, because it is a matter of personal perception and interpretation. If that is so, is it actually selfish for us to seek truth about this statement, when our motives are based on innate curiosity and ambition? terminology (excl. footnotes) 984