Unselfish v Selfish

We humans are not selfish and all rules and laws made with the assumption that we are basically selfish should be done away with. This was the argument put forward by an article in the Harvard Business Review called 'The Unselfish Gene'. I am not adequately qualified nor did I pay sufficient notice to this article to competently critique it. But I always thought that 'Selfish gene' by Dawkins (and the title is a play on that) was very clear on one thing: He was not calling humans selfish. I mean, the whole idea of the book was that genes were selfish and they would do just about anything to promote their best interests even if said interests were not favourable to the human who possesses them. Human selfishness in so much as they are caused by the genes are eminently alterable. Altruism and generosity are cultivable traits.

Why then would some noted intellectual heavyweight declare that Dawkins was wrong and that we are unselfish?

Because context matters.

In Harvard Business Review, the unselfishness of humans as proven by study X, survey Y and thought experiment Z is irrefutable evidence that it is time to de-regulate the markets. Banks are good; Businesses are kind. We don't need the government telling us to curtail predatory lending or not increase charges on credit cards. We are UNSELFISH. Global financial crisis was caused by a few bad apples. We are all intrinsically good people and we can police ourselves. Don't burden us with rules and regulations.

Say it with me, "Financial regulations are so 80s"