Selflessness, Identity, and How We Respond to Crisis
Selflessness is the quality of caring more about what other people need and want than about what you yourself need and want. For many of us, however, truly selfless behaviour sounds like a fairy tale. It is often seen as an idealistic notion dreamed up in liberal college campuses, safely removed from the realities of everyday life.
Those who consider themselves realists have long argued that every human action contains some hidden layer of self-interest. From this perspective, selflessness becomes little more than a comforting justification for the naïve, a way of avoiding the difficult task of growing up and facing the facts of life.
The Case for Self-Interest
From this realist viewpoint, everything we do, from helping a neighbour to donating blood, is ultimately motivated by personal benefit. While these benefits may differ in form and visibility, such as future favours, social approval, or prestige, the underlying motive is always self-interest. Concern for others is viewed as secondary, if it exists at all.
This interpretation of human nature has gained considerable traction in recent decades. In no small part, this is due to influential economists who framed self-interest and personal utility as the foundations of free market systems. Through policy, theory, and cultural influence, this idea has gradually become part of our shared reality.
Successful as this worldview may be, it carries a risk. In times of crisis, it can turn against us.
Crisis and Collective Self-Image
As we watch a global epidemic unfold, our reactions to unprecedented restrictions, the dedication of healthcare workers, or even the occasional business owner who refuses to close their doors reveal something important. Even our simplest choices are deeply influenced by how we see ourselves as a society.
Time and again, it appears that our decisions are shaped less by facts or direct experience and more by what we believe about human nature and our place within it.
Building on this insight, a study published in 2015 by Z. Janet Yang examined how core self-image influences social responses during a health crisis. The research focused on public reactions to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
Lessons from the Ebola Outbreak
In 2014, the Ebola crisis sparked intense debate in the United States after a Liberian man visiting family in Texas became the first person to die from Ebola on U.S. soil. Media coverage quickly polarised public opinion. Many strongly supported sending American aid workers to affected regions, while others viewed involvement as unnecessary and dangerous.
By analysing this divide, Yang identified two key belief systems that explained the opposing positions.
People who viewed the world through a strongly individualistic lens, seeing society as competitive and governed by a dog eat dog logic, were more likely to oppose collective action and reject international aid. In contrast, those who held a solidaristic and communitarian worldview, seeing society as cooperative and interdependent, were more inclined to support altruistic responses.
The Same Pattern Today
Although the current pandemic differs greatly from the Ebola outbreak, the underlying dynamic remains strikingly similar.
Today, there are many individuals who hold strongly individualistic beliefs, alongside those who believe they are personally immune to the crisis. This group often includes younger people or those with access to private healthcare. The same divide is visible in public discourse, where even expert opinions frequently align with these deeper belief systems, prioritising either private freedom and economic interests or collective health and safety.
Yang’s findings suggest that our stance in such debates is not formed in the moment. Instead, it is largely determined by a core belief, a semi-conscious choice we made at some point in the past. Since then, this belief system has shaped how we interpret events and respond to uncertainty. In times of crisis, it may also prevent us from recognising the most constructive path forward.
Beliefs Shape Behaviour
If we assume that humans are inherently selfish, this belief will inevitably influence the kind of society that emerges after a crisis. Even small, everyday decisions, such as choosing not to gather with friends, avoiding public transport, or respecting restrictions on public spaces, are linked to our basic assumptions about human nature.
When we see others as fundamentally self-interested and likely to exploit any opportunity for personal gain unless restrained, we are far more likely to act in the same way ourselves.
Interdependence and the Path Forward
In the current situation, our ability to see ourselves as deeply interdependent is not merely a moral ideal. It has the potential to save lives. Over the longer term, it may also help preserve personal freedom.
There is neither a practical way nor a compelling reason to monitor, track, and police every individual in order to enforce collective wellbeing. While some countries, such as China, are experimenting with such systems, they come at a significant social cost.
The more strongly we subscribe to a purely selfish view of human nature, the closer we move toward a reality where extreme measures begin to seem justified. Recognising our shared vulnerability and mutual reliance may be one of the most important choices we can make, not only during a crisis, but in shaping the society that follows.
