Are people really that selfish?

In today's fast-paced world, every individual is tasked to keep up with society and pursue his or her own interests, in order to survive the urban jungle. Because of our animal instinct of survival, we might compete with other people over certain 'goods' so that we might benefit or satisfy from it. People may choose a certain 'good' that would benefit from it. "I like Coke more than Pepsi because it satisfies my thirst more than Pepsi." That person who chose Coke over Pepsi is an example of rational choice.

Yes, it might be true that people really do are selfish. Who ever in this whole wide world would say that he or she was not selfish in his or her lifetime, please raise your feet. (Haha!) See, you can't even to do that. Well, people do sometimes choose something in order to satisfy their desires or 'hunger' for a certain good. In the political arena, certain politicians will do anything in their power just to satisfy their lust for power and with that they have forgotten that they were there to serve the people in the first place. The market (not the stinking market in your local town), self-interest motivates certain companies in order to make their goods 'attractive' to the consumer. In the society, people would compete each other for their own self-interests. Rational Choice, as an approach, assumes that political players are self-interested and utility maximizers. While it may be true that every decision that we make might be self-interested, we cannot generalize that every one does the same thing. That would be unfair because that would mean that people are really that mean. Are we that too selfish? I think that the proponents of this approach are biased in a way, not putting into account the various reasons besides an individual's decision. Self-interest motivation is just a speck of a lot of possibilities.

Even though the rational choice theory may sound quite biased taking into consideration only economic self-interests and utility maximation, it is still a good theory in making claims on human behavior in society, in politics and in the market. In society, social interaction is seen as social exchanges. A person may prefer to buy Coke than Pepsi simply because since it is more satisfying and brings good value for money. The theory suggests that people are motivated by "rewards and punishments" of their decisions or actions. In politics, people join certain organizations in order to get the benefits of being in an organization. If I join a certain political party, whatever the party pursues should benefit only me. But the concept of "free rider" means that even though I join a political party, no certain incentive will be given to its members since everything the party pursues benefit all. In the market, companies would compete for a monopoly for a specific good since getting hold of it benefits them, therefore increase in profit.

Despite the self-interested individuals exisiting in society, we should also take into consideration the non-rational choices an individual would have in decision-making. There are many factors that affect an individuals decision or choice. Leaving only the rational choice and assuming that every one is self-interesed and utility maximizer is incomplete. So, in conclusion, people are not all motivated by self-interests and utility maximation, and there are non-rational choices that motivate individuals in decision-making, like emotions.


Sources:
1. POLIANA Lecture notes
2. Rational Choice Theory (check out: http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~scottj/socscot7.htm)
3. Rational Choice Theory and Irrational Motivations: The Uses and Abuses of History in Political Science (check out: http://www.fathom.com/feature/35616/)