The word
‘egoism’ derives from the Latin ‘ego’ which means ‘I.’ Egoism is the idea of
being selfish and always putting your own needs first without regard for the
needs of others. There are two different kinds of egoism, so it is necessary to
describe their differences: (i) Psychological Egoism; (ii) Ethical Egoism.
Psychological
Egoism is not a moral theory, but rather it is a psychological theory about
human motivation. As such, Psychological Egoism aims to describe what we are
like rather than put moral ideas forward about what we should be like. Psychological
Egoism holds that all of us are completely selfish and that we are hardwired to
only think of our own needs so that it is literally impossible for us to
genuinely care about other people. Psychological Egoists such as Thomas Hobbes hold that whenever we
perform an action it is always done with our own good in mind. When you help a
friend it is only so they will help you back. When you help a stranger it is
only so that you can feel good about yourself, or so that you look good in
front of others. When you obey the law and abstain from stealing from shops it
will be down to a reason such as wishing to avoid getting caught and going to
prison. If a man gives money to a cancer charity this will not because he
really cares about those who are suffering from cancer, but rather, it will be
for a reason such as making sure that help is available if he himself is
unlucky enough to develop cancer. In short, Psychological Egoism says that we
are 100% selfish by nature and that it is impossible to perform an unselfish
deed.
Ethical Egoism,
on the other hand, is a moral theory which tries to recommend how people should
act. According to Ethical Egoism it is perfectly possible for people to genuinely
care about other people and to act on the behalf of other people unselfishly,
however, Ethical Egoism recommends that people should choose to be selfish and
that they should always put their own needs first. In short, Ethical Egoism
says it is good to be selfish, and this will be the focus of the current
discussion.
Ethical Egoists
may well recommend that a person should be friendly and helpful towards others,
but they will say this is purely because it is beneficial to the person
themselves. If I help others then they will help me back in return: you scratch
my back and I will scratch yours. An Ethical Egoist may well follow the normal
rules of morality to a large extent, abstaining from theft, violence, and
lying, but their motivation will always be what is best for themselves: if I
don’t steal others’ things then they won’t steal mine.
Altruism
In contrast to
egoism there is altruism. The word ‘altruism’ derives from the French ‘autres’ which
means ‘others.’ A person who is altruistic cares about and is motivated by the
needs of other people. Altruistic actions are selfless, they are done for the
sake of other people and not for any personal gain. Altruistic people may well
even sacrifice their own needs and desires for the sake of others. Indeed, many
people argue that actions can only really be called moral if they are done for
the sake of helping others rather than helping yourself. It is often thought
that we have a natural inclination to be selfish, even if we are not totally
selfish as Psychological Egoists claim, we do tend to put ourselves first quite
regularly. Arguably learning to think of others is an admirable thing to do and
it is the starting point of moral goodness.
There is a
common assumption that either a person is selfish in their actions or they are selfless.
Arguably this is too simplistic as in reality most people have a complicated
mixture of selfish desires and altruistic desires. Many philosophers argue that
egoism and altruism do not totally exclude each other, you do not have to lose
all care for yourself in order to care properly about other people. Jesus said “love
thy neighbour as thyself” which is clearly demonstrating a balance between your
own needs and those of others – yes you should care about and look after
yourself, but you should also recognise the humanity in other people and care
about them too: you should not hurt them and where possible you should help
them. Thus we should not presume that you can only be altruistic by perpetually
putting yourself last and acting like your own needs don’t really matter.
Ethical Egoism
Ethical Egoism
does not deny the possibility of altruism. Ethical Egoists would admit that it is
perfectly possible to care about other people, however, according to the
Ethical Egoist you ought not to care about the needs or welfare of others, you
should only care about and act on your own needs and interests. This means that
Ethical Egoism is a Normative Ethical theory stating how people should act, and
stating that you should act selfishly.
Ethical Egoism
seems to turn conventional morality on its head by saying it is good to be
selfish: people are capable of being altruistic but they should not bother
caring for others. Of course it makes sense to help other people and not to be
outwardly greedy, to share for example, but only because this is the best way
of achieving what you want for yourself in the long term. As an example, an
Ethical Egoist might go to a party and desire to eat the whole birthday cake
for themselves, but they will realise that acting in this obviously greedy
manner will mean they don’t get invited to any birthday parties again, and so
instead they will share the cake equally with the others.
Ethical Egoism
is a teleological theory according to which the correct action a person should
take is the action that has the best consequence for that person themselves,
regardless of the effects on other people. As Michael Palmer puts it:
Egoism maintains that each person
ought to act to maximise his or her own long-term good or well-being. An
egoist, in other words, is someone who holds that their one and only obligation
is to themselves and their only duty
is to serve their own self-interest…
If an action produces benefits for them, they should do it; if it doesn’t, then
it is morally acceptable for them not to do it.
Michael Palmer, Moral Problems, page 34.
An Ethical
Egoist only cares about his own needs and desires, and would view himself as
having value, whilst others are not of value to him, unless of course he can
get something out of them. This perspective is very similar to the way that a
commercial company’s only concern is its own profits. Commercial companies
exist to expand as much as they can, to conquer as much of the market as they
can, and to overtake their rivals or even put them out of business. If a
company takes actions which benefit its rivals at its own expense then from an
economist’s point of view we would automatically call it mismanaged and condemn
its actions as foolish. This is what the Ethical Egoist does to all actions
which are altruistic, he condemns them as foolish: people should look after
number one and not be burdened with the needs of others.
Of course, Ethical
Egoism doesn’t mean that people should go out looting shops, stealing cars,
killing enemies and generally doing what they want, because as Hobbes pointed
out, such actions would lead to anarchy and wouldn’t be good for anybody.
Rather, Ethical Egoists should live in peace with one another, help each other,
and work together, because that is the best way for the individual to get the
good living conditions he is after. However, Ethical Egoists contend that if
you find yourself in a situation where you could benefit from harming someone
else, and you know you will get away with it, then the sensible thing is to go
ahead and harm them, after all, if stealing is beneficial to yourself then you
ought to do it.
Ethical Egoism & hedonism
In many cases
Ethical Egoists are also hedonists, which means that they view pleasure or
happiness as the ultimate goal of life, to be specific, their own happiness and
pleasure. Generally Ethical Egoists will recommend acting with long term
interests in mind rather than seeking short term advantages, for example,
instead of going out with friends all the time in your teenage years it might be
better to spend more time working for school in order to get good
qualifications and a good job in the future, which will bring a happy life
rather than just a happy couple of years.
Hedonists view
pleasure as an intrinsic good,
something which is good in and of itself, and they view pain or discomfort as
intrinsically bad, however, hedonists argue that sometimes pain or discomfort
will have to be accepted in order to achieve a good pleasurable thing. Exercise
may be hard work and sometimes painful, and dieting will mean missing out on
pleasurable experiences, but the health benefits will make the effort worth it.
This is what is know as an instrumental
good, something which is not good in itself but which leads to something
else which is good. Another example is work; many people find it unpleasant and
boing, so work is a bad thing to them. However, work means that you to get paid
and so it helps you to get the pleasurable things you want: food, clothing, a
house, trips to the cinema, etc. This means work is an instrumental good.
For the average
Ethical Egoist the goal of life is their own personal long-term pleasure, and
so their own personal pleasure is an intrinsic good. However, achieving your
own personal pleasure will often have to mean treating others well and helping,
but not because they care for others, rather, because it is an instrumental
good that will allow them to have a pleasurable life. Of course, many of us do
find that we care for other people and do want to help them, and that if we
hurt others we will feel bad about it. In these cases Ethical Egoists would say
that the most beneficial thing for a person to do is indeed to help others and
refrain from harming them, but of course, only because it will make the
individual himself feel happy.
Epicurus
The Greek
philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BCE) was a hedonist and stated “pleasure is our
first and kindred good. It is the starting point of every choice and of every
aversion.” It is from his name that we derive the word ‘epicurean’ which means
someone who revels in the delights of food, which is ironic because Epicurus
himself had a very plain diet since he suffered from stomach problems. Taking a
line somewhat similar to Buddhism, Epicurus argued that true pleasure was “the
absence of pain in the body and trouble in the soul” and so he actually
advocated a simple life where people try to give up desiring all the things
they cannot have. He did not think that a life of sex, drink, and good food was
a truly pleasurable life because he held that the greater the upside is the
greater the downside will be also, for example, the more you drink the bigger
the hangover is. Instead Epicurus
advocated a life of sober reasoning and knowledge.
Epicurus also
argued that a life cannot be truly pleasurable unless it is also “a life of
prudence, honour, and justice”, which indicates an important idea – that the
happiness of the individual is dependent on the happiness of his community, so we
must therefore treat others well. Epicurus would have said that the best way to
be happy is to have friends and to act honourably towards other people.
Adam Smith
Adam Smith (1723
– 1790) was an economist, and he was famously a champion of private property
and free market economy. He took the view that intentionally serving your own
interests will bring benefits for all. Philip Stokes gives the following
example: “suppose that Jones, in seeking his own fortune, decides to set up and
run his own business, manufacturing some common item of everyday need. In
seeking only to provide for his own fortune, Jones’ entrepreneurial enterprise
has a number of unintended benefits to others. First he provides a livelihood
for the people in his employ, thus benefiting them directly. Second, he makes
more readily available some common item which previously had been more
difficult or more expensive to obtain for his customers.” Smith argued that a
free market and competition would ensure that businesses kept their prices at
competitive rates, helping to make customers better off as well as the business
owners. Through selfish action everyone is better off, therefore, Capitalist
selfishness is the key to universal happiness and prosperity for all.
However,
arguably the consequences of businesses acting in a self-interested way is not
necessarily benefits for all; we need only look at the appalling conditions of
people working in factories during the Industrial Revolution to see that this
is so. Today the people of industrialised countries have a much more
comfortable lifestyle, but most of the rest of the
world still languishes in
poverty and exploitation, and it is precisely through their subjugation that we
have our high standard of living: we have so much material wealth because we
exploit those who are powerless and poor, we give them the choice of working in
dire conditions to make us cheep goods or starving. Arguably, the factories
have not improved, they have just moved.
James Rachels
James Rachels
discusses Ethical Egoism but he does not endorse it. Rachels actually gives
reasons to reject Ethical Egoism, but first he explains the theory fully and
explains why many people agree with it.
Rachels states
that the idea that we have duties to others is a common assumption, but none
the less it is not clear that any such duty to help others really exists. We
are often made to think that there is a natural obligation towards others because
they are people and because our own actions could help or harm them. One
argument for Ethical Egoism is that this simply is not so, we have no specific
reason to think of others as important, we have no specific obligations towards
them, whereas on the other hand, we have a self-evident duty to look after
ourselves. When I am hungry I automatically feel it is important to feed
myself, but there is no reason why I should think it is important for me to
feed other people when they are hungry.
One argument for
Ethical Egoism that he considers is that altruism is ‘self defeating.’
According to this perspective each individual person is in the best position to
serve their own interests, whilst others are not. I know intimately what I
need, whereas others, if they try to take an interest in my life and help me,
may not know what is best and should therefore mind their own business and not
interfere. There is a sense in which helping others is an intrusion on their
privacy, and similarly, there is the view that charity towards others is
degrading: “it robs them of their individual dignity and self-respect. The
offer of charity says, in effect, that they are not competent to care for
themselves.”
Rachels rejects
this argument as ridiculous as it is perfectly clear what a starving man needs,
especially if he is actually asking for help. Also, arguing that we shouldn’t
interfere because it invades another person’s dignity hardly seems like a valid
egoistic argument, as it appeals to the needs of other people and encourages
respect of them as individuals.
Next Rachels
considers the views of Thomas Hobbes (1588
– 1679). Hobbes was a Psychological Egoist and thought that it was impossible
to really be motivated by the needs of others, so Ethical Egoism became his
moral position by default: self-benefit is the only thing we are capable of
doing, so it makes sense to say that benefitting themselves is what people
ought to be doing. Rather than saying that Ethical Egoism runs counter to our
common sense morality, Hobbes argued that it actually explains and underpins
it. When we treat others well, help them, and do our best not to harm them, it
is all done in order to create the kind of stable society which is best for our
own personal needs. By not killing or stealing from others we ensure that we
ourselves will not be killed or stolen from. By putting welfare measures in
place for others we ensure that we ourselves will be helped in times of
trouble. By keeping promises to others we ensure that they keep promises to us,
and that no conflicts arise which could be a threat to your own continued
survival. Effectively then, Hobbes is saying that selfishness is not the
opposite of our common morality at all, but rather, selfishness underpins our
common morality and is the reasoning behind it.
Ayn Rand
Another famous
egoist is Ayn Rand (1905 – 1982), however, her version of Ethical Egoism is
very different from the average case of acting in pure self-interest. For Rand
it is important to be a hardworking and creative person and to be as independent
as you can. In her view people should work hard to satisfy their needs, they
should not expect others to give them a hand-out or a free ride. If you work
hard and achieve a good life for yourself, such as having wealth for example,
then you have earned what you possess and no one should have the right to
demand that you give it away to those less fortunate or successful than
yourself. She views altruism as a moral
philosophy founded on leeching, she sees it as a philosophy which tells people
that they ought to give up all they have, and all their own interests, to
satisfy the needs of others. In her view people should strive to fulfil their
own needs and not be parasitical upon those who are more successful than
themselves.
Interestingly,
Rand also rejects those who get into positions of power and leech off of those
below them, people such as tyrants and gang leaders. This is what marks her brand
of Ethical Egoism as different from that of the average Egoist; whereas the
average Ethical Egoist will say that it is fine to abuse others to get what you
want, all that matters is your own gain, Rand believes that this is wrong – you
should work hard to get what you have, not steal it from others in some way. If
you have worked hard and been creative then you have a right to be proud of
yourself and to reap the rewards. In her view those who label this kind of
independence and self-motivation as ‘selfish’ are doing so because they wish to
force creative and useful people to share with them. The following quote is
from her novel, The Fountainhead:
The first right on Earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to
himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of
others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does
not depend primarily upon other men…. A
man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule – alone…. Rulers
of men are not egoist. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the
persons of others. Their goal is their subjects, in activity of enslaving. They
are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of
dependence does not matter. Ayn
Rand, The Fountainhead
Rand’s view
clearly has links to Capitalism and the ‘American Dream.’ Whereas normal
Ethical Egoism would say that a person who could achieve good consequences for
themselves by theft should go ahead and do it, Rand would disagree. For Rand
the important thing is working hard for your own benefit, and if you have
worked hard then you deserve to reap the rewards of that work without being
told you have to give up your time or money for others. She would argue that a
person is entitled to the sweat of their own brow.
Criticisms of Ethical Egoism
As you may
imagine, there are many criticisms of Ethical Egoism, the most obvious simply
being the insistence that selfish actions do not have moral worth. Read these
criticisms and consider how an Ethical Egoist might respond to defend their
view:
1) Anything can be justified, so long as
you can profit from it and get away with it.
It is clear that
if everyone were to adopt Ethical Egoism then, in general, life would function
admirably well, people would help each other because teamwork produces the best
results for every individual involved, and people would not harm each other
because everyone is better off in a world where they feel safe and protected.
However, what if the opportunity arises for a person to gain from harming
another person and get away with it? Suppose, for example, that I am good with
computers and know how to hack websites and hide my trail; why not commit some
fraud and live a millionaire lifestyle? Or what if I was in a secluded place
and came across a man asleep on a bench with a briefcase full of cash; why not
kill him and take the cash and run? And why stop at killing one person if I can
profit from many, perhaps I could become a drugs baron and live a life of
luxury whilst my others die to line my pockets?
If Ethical
Egoism is viewed as the right morality then it would become morally correct to
hurt others so long as you can gain from hurting them and get away with hurting
them. Arguably the very point of morality is to hold our selfish and violent
urges at bay and stop them from leading us to harmful actions against others,
and yet, Ethical Egoism gives them clear justification to hurting others so
long as you can get away with it.
However, James
Rachels claims that this attack against Ethical Egoism is ineffective because
it simply presumes that Ethical Egoism is false. The criticism assumes that it
is wrong to hurt others for personal gain, but this is essentially just
assuming Ethical Egoism is false. Surely an Ethical Egoist would just accept
that it was right to hurt others for gain, or as Hobbes put it, in a war or
conflict the cardinal virtues are “force and fraud” – violence and trickery.
2) Ethical Egoism cannot provide answers
for moral conflicts
Kurt Baier
argues that the reason why we need morality is in order for it to settle
conflicts of interest, however, Ethical Egoism does not provide a means to
resolve these conflicts and actually exacerbates them, thus, it is an
insufficient moral theory.
Imagine that Kate
and Bruce are getting divorced and are arguing over who should have custody of
their children. Surely moral rules should be in place to establish who would be
the best person to care for the children, who would be the most deserving of
the custody, and so on? In other words, laws and moral principles are meant to
be there to resolve problems such as these. However, under Ethical Egoism a
judge has no reason to care who the children end up with because neither option
is particularly in his interests, unless one side offers him a bribe of course.
Moreover, Ethical Egoism would actually exacerbate the problem by encouraging
both Kate and Bruce to argue all the more in pursuit of their own desires: each
ought to do whatever they can to get their own way, without any care or concern
for the effects on the other party, or even their children. Kate should use
every device at her disposal to make Bruce appear to be an awful father, no
matter what effect this has on Bruce, the children, or anyone else, all that matters
to her if she is an Ethical Egoist is that she gets her own way, even if it
means putting together a plot to make him lose his job, or even having him
killed. And if Bruce is an Ethical Egoist he too will use every trick available
to him to harm or discredit Kate too. So we see that rather than resolving the
conflict Ethical Egoism will actually make it worse!
Baier states
that the Ethical Egoist solution to the conflict is for each side to up their
game in their efforts to win custody, for Kate to seek to ‘liquidate’ Bruce
(either kill him or somehow make him ineligible to win) and for Bruce to
attempt the same with Kate. This escalates the conflict and so is the exact
opposite of what morality is meant to do.
James Rachels
argues that this attack is not completely successful against Ethical Egoism
because it is based on the assumption that morality exists to resolve conflicts
in order to create harmony, a view which and Egoist might not agree with. An Egoist might just take a quite ‘Darwinist’
attitude to life and see life as a struggle in which the strong and clever
succeed and get their way. They may simply see life as a competition that each
individual is seeking to win. They may well say “life is essentially a long
series of conflicts in which each person is struggling to come out on top.” For
the Egoist morality is not about amicably resolving conflicts and compromising,
the ‘good’ man is the one who wins and gets what he wants.
3) Ethical Egoism is arbitrary, like racism
As previously
stated, James Rachels rejects Ethical Egoism, and the reason he gives is that
it is actually quite similar to racism or sexism. There are numerous ‘ethical’
perspectives which work by creating distinctions between groups of people and
then stating that one group is superior in some way. Prejudice usually works by
dividing the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’, for example, into ‘whites’ and ‘non-whites.’
In the past many white people considered their own group to be morally,
culturally, genetically, or intellectually superior to non-whites and they used
this as an excuse to mistreat non-white, for instance, making them do the worst
jobs, paying them less, even enslaving non-whites or invading their countries
to build empires. But today most people understand that there are no
significant genetic differences between the races. We reject racism,
xenophobia, and other prejudices such as sexism because we see them as
groundless: there is no valid reason to make a division between one ‘superior’
group and another ‘inferior’ group. Rachels argues that if we look closely at
Ethical Egoism it makes the same mistake:
Ethical Egoism is a moral theory of the same type [as racism]. It
advocates that each of us divide the world into two categories – ourselves and
all the rest – and that we regard the interests of those in the first group as
more important than the interests of those in the second group. But each of us
can ask, what is the difference between me and everyone else that justifies
placing myself in this special category? Am I more intelligent? Do I enjoy my
life more? Are my accomplishments greater? Do I have needs or abilities that
are so different from the needs or abilities of others? In short, what makes me so special? Failing an
answer it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine, in the same
way that racism is arbitrary. And this, in addition to explaining why Ethical
Egoism is unacceptable, also sheds some light on the question of why we should
care about others. James
Rachel, Ethical Egoism
Rachels rejects
Ethical Egoism because it takes the view that an individual is, from his own
perspective, more important than others, even to the point where he might
willingly sacrifice hundreds of others for his own needs, but there is no
rational basis for an individual to think of himself as being any more
important than any others. Thus, Ethical Egoism is baseless and we must
recognise that others and their needs are just as important as ourselves and
our own needs. Yes it is normal to seek your own happiness, but this cannot
justify treating others like they have little or no value, because these other
people are no different from ourselves and so must be regarded as having equal
value.
Conclusion
Whether or not
people have a duty to help others, or at least not to harm them, is a key
question in Normative Ethics. Ethical Egoists argue that you should only care
about yourself, and ignore the needs of others. This means that it would be
acceptable to hurt other people for your own benefit, so long as you can get
away with it. James Rachels argues that it is illogical to think of yourself as
being more important than anyone else, indeed, that this is equivalent to
racism, but is he correct or is selfishness a good thing?
No comments:
Post a Comment