It depends.
Do we look at this fundamental philosophical question from a political perspective; or a moralistic viewpoint? Is there a difference in the outcome? We shall see.
The great ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle once wrote that man is a political being. We need to be social in order to keep our seemingly inherent selfishness in check. Without society, life dissolves into chaos because of this selfishness. Politics is a way to establish a given society so that we can work together and live amongst one another in a civilized manner.
So from a political standpoint, we could say that yes we are both social and selfish because without the idea of sociability, selfishness ceases to exist just as there is no light without darkness; no left without right, etc. It might even be safe to say that we are social and selfish by nature because having these qualities has enabled us to survive and reproduce offspring that have thus prevailed.
Morality explores the ideas of right and wrong. How should we live in this world? Do we only take into account our own interests or do we consider the interests of our fellow creatures and those of all living things? I think it’s logical to say that yes, we should consider how our actions affect those around us if we want to live harmoniously within our environment. But is this logical conclusion based on self-interest i.e. feeling good about how we live, or does every moral choice demand a social imperative in its reasoning?
But again we have the problem of ‘what is natural’? It is a chicken/egg question of which comes first, or does there have to be both a chicken to make the egg and an egg to make the chicken? It seems to be quite paradoxical to suggest that one can exist without the other.
It is important to keep in mind that throughout history, different philosophers have produced ideas that reflect their own cultures and world views, forming their conclusions in an anecdotal way i.e. based on their own experiences.
Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) claimed that man is by nature selfish and without the state, we cannot co-exist without constant fear of our fellow man. Unfortunately, this is just not true and reflects more Hobbes’ own bitter attitude towards humanity rather than any resemblance of how life operates on its own (without any human interference). He was also a product of his time and obviously many things were not understood as they are today. The evidence to support my criticism of Hobbes can be found by simply looking at aboriginal cultures that still exist in the world today; without state, without politics, and without war, murder, disease and crime.
During the 18th century, German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) used logic to explain his now famous categorical imperative: act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. This seems to be a refreshingly objective stance on determining what is moral and even goes beyond ideas of selfishness and sociability—suggesting that there is a greater point on the continuum of morality (wrong–>right).
To conclude this essay, I will say—and of course to reflect my own experiences, culture, environment, etc—that there is not really such a thing as human nature. This is a false premise and a logical fallacy of assumed default position i.e. just because it seems to be so, it must be so.
Human beings learn behaviors and thought patterns through the environment they are brought up in. We are all products of our surroundings, upbringings, etc. We seek pleasure and avoid pain. Yes, that is selfish. But we can get our needs met better when we learn to be sociable. A child does not learn to be sociable nor are they born selfish because sociability is just a way to help meet our selfish needs.
So yes, we are both social and selfish. Naturally? No, because only needs are natural; personal qualities are learned traits to meet and express those needs.