A minor quibble, but I'd say that depends entirely on the action and the circumstances surrounding it. "Pure" selfishness is simply the maximizing of one's own gain without regard for others. It does not imply helping or hurting, although it allows for both.
To draw from a geeky example, Shane shooting Otis in the leg so the zombies would attack the latter, not the former, on the Walking Dead was selfish. So, too, would a Google donation to the EFF be selfish. One action hurts others, the other helps, but both help the actor.
It's partly a definition debate, but I think it's a mistake to try to label selfishness as everyone but selflessness.
If something is win-win, it's not selfish. Attempting to label mutually beneficial actions "selfish" is Ayn-Rand era propaganda. If an action is good for you, and bad for others, it's selfish. If an action is good for others and bad for you, it's selfless (though it might turn out to be a good thing for you - that's karma). If good for everyone (including you), or something that benefits you and doen't really effect anyone else, it's neither selfish nor selfless, it's just a smart move.
Ultimately, selfishness describes motivations, not actions. If you think Google's action was selfishly motivated (and they had no concern for the positive or negative externalities of their action) then it's fair to call their action selfish. But unless you're a mind reader, it's hard to make that call.
But aren't we told by nearly everyone that it's better, morally, to be selfless? You're saying that it's better not to be selfless, but to make "smart moves"?
From what I've read, it doesn't appear that you think that selflessness is a good thing. Is this correct?
I think it's good to be selfless if there's a big net gain in doing so. I wouldn't inconvenience myself to give a tiny benefit to someone else - the "karma" would have to be worth the cost.
So, to be good according to your standard, there must be a big net gain for the beneficiary, and that beneficiary must not be or include you, correct?
How do you decide what constitutes a benefit that's great enough? Where do you actually draw the line? Is it moral to go out to the movies, when that same money could change the life of an impoverished child (for a month or two) in some faraway land? Is it moral to selfishly pursue a college education (college benefits the student first and foremost), when the money spent on tuition could be spent on charity, and the student's time could be given to service?
Also, why do you think that doing something morally good (though we obviously disagree about what constitutes the good) is any different from doing something that's practical (a "smart move")? I hold that the purpose of morality is to enable a flourishing life in the here and now, as opposed to something that's "tacked on," only theoretical, or somehow optional.
Nope, good for me is also good, as long as it doesn't cause much harm.
Once you start talking opportunity cost, it gets a bit more complicated. But I implement my standard using reasonable heuristics, not some platonic maximization.
Just because I believe in some underlying standard doesn't mean I act on it. I could cook up some underlying standard that's easy to meet (do what's good for number 1, do what "feel'), but that's kind of silly.
Going one level below the discussion about the correct definition of selfishness vs. selflessness (the answer here might help us understand what the definition should be):
What do you use as the standard for what "good" is? I.e., if you were to say that "healthy food is good," the question I'm asking is, "good for what?" Put another way, when you evaluate something as good or bad (or neutral) in a specific context, by what means do you decide which of these categories to place the thing in?
"Pure" selfishness is simply the maximizing of one's own gain without regard for others.
But each of us lives in a world surrounded by other people, many of whom are valuable to us. How could I be selfish (that is, gain the most, ultimately) without regarding the effects of my actions on the people and things that I care about most? I wouldn't want to live at all without my wife, for example.
How could it be purely selfish to live alone, without anyone to interact with? That sounds like misery, so I don't think that can possibly be what "purely selfish" should mean.
A little old now, so you might miss this. Anyway, here's my take: There's a difference between rational selfishness, which entails considering all the options and choosing the one that most benefits you (as you describe), and rash selfishness, which is simply acting for one's own immediate gain without thought for others. Both share the same motivation, that is, maximizing one's own gain.
Whereas the rash selfish person does this without regard for other people at all, the rationally selfish person does this with regard only for himself, but knowing that other people are key to his own gains and seeking to maximize same through others. Thus someone who wanted to be loved could well be rationally selfish in seeking out a mate and forging a good relationship with them.
A minor quibble, but I'd say that depends entirely on the action and the circumstances surrounding it. "Pure" selfishness is simply the maximizing of one's own gain without regard for others. It does not imply helping or hurting, although it allows for both.
To draw from a geeky example, Shane shooting Otis in the leg so the zombies would attack the latter, not the former, on the Walking Dead was selfish. So, too, would a Google donation to the EFF be selfish. One action hurts others, the other helps, but both help the actor.