I dont know maybe Kant defend this but i dont defend it. I dont defend helping people for the sake of help. Because then you shouldn´t help the people you love or you pity. Because you will take pleasure if you help them. In this situation you should only help the people you hate or you don´t know. But this can cause a destruction in society. Because our first duty should be helping the people we love or pity. So i defend we must help others for the sake of pleasure we feel after helping. So we should be egoists. Only that way we can help who we want to help. I am defending egoism and immorality. Because they are more constructive and useful.

 Good point. But you should understand this we help people only we want to help. This is selfish. Nobody helps the people they hate. Why? Because in return they feel pain or they don´t feel anything. People only help people who they will have pleasure in return. It is an selfish act. Do you understand me?

Most of the time doing an act because of social duty is an selfless act because you give something but  in return you take nothing. Maybe you feel pain. But you bear it because of social duty. This is an selfless act. But you can also feel happy when you give someone something because of social duty. This is an selfish act too. Because you take some kind of pleasure.

Nobody can force you to do your social duty if it is not a law. And most of people prefer not to do it. But some do it. Because they feel they are obliged to do it. And they take no pleasure in return. This is pure selfless act. But if the person thinks other people will celebrate him/her in return if he/she does his social duty it is selfish too.

For example most of the people send their old parents to nursing homes. But some of them take care of them even they don´t want and it is unbearable. Because they think it is a social duty to take care of them. This is an selfless act.

But i don´t approve this kind of selfless act. Because you don´t want to help them. But you feel you are obliged to. I dont find it is sincere. I aprove the selfish act. You should take care of them if you want, you shouldn´t take care of them if you don´t want. This is more honest.

 there is a quote in my country: a good thing is immoral, illegal or putting on weight 

And why do we hate this people? Perhaps because they are undeserving of our love or attention. This has nothing to do with selfish or not, but with right or wrong. I feel joy to see a hungry child smile, after he gets a meal... Even though I do not know this child at all. I do not feel joy when I see a crazy child-killer smile, after he has just admitted that he has killed several children.... Even though I do not know this man at all. I´d rather give food to the hungry child, than help the crazy killer out of jail. Even if I would be unable to have feelings of joy, I would make this choice. Why? This is simply because I believe one is more deserving than the other, and there is a connection of justice to it.

PS: interesting thread

Does having a need to satisfy make you selfish?  Also, as you have defined selfishness....it sounds like a good thing...not evil.  Does being selfish automatically mean you are evil?  What is evil?  I think evil is the: 1.  Intent to harm 2.  Gaining pleasure from harming someone else.   

Hummmm....now I feel like I am in philosophy class again.  Thanks gokuyum...you have me contemplating the universe again.

Answer to your question they are both evil and good. In my opinion, with a phisophical approach, there is no goodness, badness, mercy or love actually, these are human beings´ classification and definition of our behaviours and senses, we name them and create them in fact, no human being no good or evil act, they are meaningless. Evil or good acts evolve relatively depandant to the conditions. Human nature is of course selfish, inclined to greed, arrogance, egoism etc, but the thing that human race differ from other livings, they try to withstand those tendencies...

Protogoras -a wise man from many hundreds of years ago put it this way: "Man is the measure of all things." 

Just like all other living things, humans are opportunistic by nature. Opportunism is one of the most vivid indicators of intelligence. Nature without intelligence is just a string of phenomena occuring in perfect spontaneity. Humans, animals and even plants turn this spontaneity into a form which is more predictable and thus controllable creating centers of intelligence relentlessly fostering processes benign to them and mitigating those that would undermine their existence. A forest transforms the terrain on which it exists and introduces a system which fosters elements supportive of its own existence and eliminates those that are a threat for it. Humans are very much that way too. Nevertheless, it is virtually impossible to isolate  human from society. Humans exist in social groups and their qualities develop as a result of complex interaction with society. Remembering what Protogoras said, they are basically measurement instruments but what they measure or how they measure is not completely at their discretion. The definition of malice for a nun in a monastery is not the same as that believed true by a party girl. A truly wicked person could be considered as an angel by his friends in the mafia. Likewise, someone whom you admire could be detested by another. All these prove that we need reference points to determine what is good and any judgement made that way is valid only within a certain context.

In nature, there is no good or bad. There are just phenomena and their consequences. Good and bad exist in people´s minds. People have founded institutions which they declared instrumental in determining what is good. Religion is one of them,the justice system is another. Once you get into one of them, you must follow their path and make decisions filtering out certain aspects of life. At the end of the day, you may feel content having done the right things thus becoming a good person. But these instutions too change over time. The laws are lifted when they are overdue, religions are reformed when they can´t keep up, and no book of ethics can remain in circulation for more than a few decades. From a universal perspective, what we are actually seeking is a quick and dirty decision that will give us the contendness we need.

Not only are we the judges of others, we also like to be judged from time to time. That´s why we ask questions about being right or wrong. We sometimes need confirmation, a tapping on the shoulder that will set us on the right track.

There is the well-known concept of tabula rasa which holds that man is like an empty board at birth. Therefore he is essentially neither good nor bad. Accordingly, good and bad are two concepts that come to life as one gains knowledge. A Biblical scene depicts the moment when Adam eats the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge introduced mortality, self-awareness and a string of other human qualities. According to the Bible, man has the potentiality of making mistakes or committing crimes. The Christian faith considers man bad by birth and requires him to be baptized to get rid of that primeval sin. Christian God feels compassion for man despite his mistakes and sins and offers instant salvation to repentful souls.

 Most of the time we hate people who challenges  our ego. We can easily hate people when they don´t agree with us or criticize us. Because they defy our ego. You say you feel joy when  you see a hungry child smile and don´t feel joy when you see a crazy child killer smile. As i said you want to feel joy when you help someone in return. So you help people to feel that joy.This is egoist. But it is not a bad thing. I call this positive egoism. I am defending it. But Kant says you must help people for the sake of helping. He says this is the moral one. And according to common ethics he says the truth. But i don´t defend this kind of idea. I am defending positive egoism. We should help the people we love or pity and have pleasure in return. There is nothing wrong with this. We are egoist creatures. And egoism is not always an evil thing. I called humans evil creatures according to common ethics. Because egoism is evil according to it. But good and evil is relative. I am trying to show egoism is not always a bad thing.

All the big artists,inventors, scientists are egoist people. Because they followed their ideas by not paying attention to public opinion.Their whole purpose was creating or discovering something new. Because only this way they would be happy. As you see their egoism was positive.