Ethical Egoism
A central tenet of morality is that we should be concerned for the welfare of others. Some theories maintain that we must help others when they need our help. However, ethical egoism postulates that the only duty we have is to ourselves and our welfare. We ought to act according to our self-interest. Regardless of whether psychological egoism is correct, ethical egoism can be defended as a normative theory. In this lecture, we’ll consider three arguments in favor of and against ethical egoism.
The first argument is that altruism is self-defeating. Our attempts to help others very often fail or worse have the opposite effects than those we intend. Not only that, altruism is overly paternalistic and intrudes on the liberty of those we’re trying to help. John Stuart Mill discusses this point in his essay titled On Liberty. As Mill points out, the only justifiable reason to restrict someone’s liberty is to prevent them from harming others. We have no right to intrude on anyone’s liberty for their good. Another interesting philosophical source for this line of reasoning is the classical economist Adam Smith. As he points out in The Wealth of Nations:
“Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society.”
Furthermore, Smith says “I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.”
But the ethical egoist misunderstands the point of Mill’s and Smith’s reasoning. Consider the point of the argument. We shouldn’t act to further the interest of others because this will not, in fact, further their interest. The best way to further the interests of others is to follow our self-interest. But, this is the opposite conclusion from what the egoist means to draw. The egoist’s concern is not furthering the interests of others at all. So, why should they care that pursuing one’s interest is the best way to help others? Adam Smith’s point was simply that we can help others better by pursuing our self-interest and since we should be concerned about helping others we should pursue our self-interest. No ethical egoist would make such an argument.
A second argument for ethical egoism was put forward by the 20th-century philosopher Ayn Rand. She was famous for her novels celebrating self-interest and free-market capitalism such as Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Her basic line of reasoning is that altruism is self-destructive of our most important possession; ourselves. The supreme value is the individual’s existence and since we have only one life to live it is immoral to ask one to sacrifice this life for the sake of others.
One problem with this line of reasoning is that it presupposes that there are only two options. As we discussed in the lecture on psychological egoism, being concerned about the welfare of others is not necessarily at odds with being concerned with oneself. From Rand’s perspective, it seems that the only way to express concern for others is to completely sacrifice one’s welfare. This, of course, is not necessary.
The third argument for ethical egoism is that it is compatible with our common-sense moral intuitions. According to this view, egoism is the best theory to explain the duties we have to others such as the duty not to harm others, not to lie, and to keep our promises. In each case, the main argument for having these duties is that it is in our best interest.
But, ethical egoism also fails here because it cannot demonstrate that it is always in our best interest not to lie or harm others. And, of course, from the perspective of the egoist, if it is in fact in our best interest to lie or harm others this is exactly what we should do. So, it appears that ethical egoism is not always in line with our common sense notions of morality. Also, egoism doesn’t seem to be able to explain the fundamental reason why certain actions are right to do. As Rachels points out, egoism cannot adequately explain why it is morally right to contribute money to help people who are suffering from famine. This seems like a good example of something common sense would tell us is morally correct. But, ethical egoism couldn’t explain why. The answer does not exclusively if at all, involve our self-interest. The main reason we should contribute money is to help starving people!
In addition to these problems, there are also three arguments against ethical egoism. Two of these arguments may be very confusing. Specifically, these are the argument that egoism cannot handle conflicts of interest and the argument that egoism is logically inconsistent. The third argument, that egoism is arbitrary, should be clearer.
The argument that ethical egoism cannot handle conflicts of interest is illustrated by the example of B and K given by Kurt Baier in his book The Moral Point of View. The idea is that egoism doesn’t give us a method to resolve cases where one person’s interests conflict with another’s. But, this is precisely what an ethical theory should do. Of course, the egoist might simply say that this is how life works. Sometimes our interests conflict with others and we can only resolve this by one person prevailing over another. Harsh, but true perhaps.
The second argument is that ethical egoism is logically inconsistent. Rachels outlines this complex argument in 9 steps. The main point is that egoism seems to entail that the same action is both right and wrong at the same time which, of course, is contradictory. But, the contradiction can be eliminated if we eliminate premise 5 from the argument which says “it is wrong to prevent someone from doing his duty.” The ethical egoist would probably not accept this premise anyway so we are unable to destroy egoism using this line of reasoning.
A third possible argument against ethical egoism is that it is unacceptably arbitrary. Ethical egoism maintains that only my interests count and I should act to further those interests. But what makes me so different from everyone else? Why am I so special? If you think about it you discover that there’s no good reason for singling one person out as better or more special. We’re all the same in our desire for happiness and our right to be treated with respect and dignity. Unless there are any relevant differences between ourselves and everyone else we cannot justify different treatment. If my desire for happiness should be fulfilled and if my basic needs should be met so too should everyone else’s. There’s no good argument for disregarding the interests of others. This seems to be a solid argument against ethical egoism and should encourage us to seek out a theory that addresses the welfare of others.
The first argument is that altruism is self-defeating. Our attempts to help others very often fail or worse have the opposite effects than those we intend. Not only that, altruism is overly paternalistic and intrudes on the liberty of those we’re trying to help. John Stuart Mill discusses this point in his essay titled On Liberty. As Mill points out, the only justifiable reason to restrict someone’s liberty is to prevent them from harming others. We have no right to intrude on anyone’s liberty for their good. Another interesting philosophical source for this line of reasoning is the classical economist Adam Smith. As he points out in The Wealth of Nations:
“Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society.”
Furthermore, Smith says “I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.”
But the ethical egoist misunderstands the point of Mill’s and Smith’s reasoning. Consider the point of the argument. We shouldn’t act to further the interest of others because this will not, in fact, further their interest. The best way to further the interests of others is to follow our self-interest. But, this is the opposite conclusion from what the egoist means to draw. The egoist’s concern is not furthering the interests of others at all. So, why should they care that pursuing one’s interest is the best way to help others? Adam Smith’s point was simply that we can help others better by pursuing our self-interest and since we should be concerned about helping others we should pursue our self-interest. No ethical egoist would make such an argument.
A second argument for ethical egoism was put forward by the 20th-century philosopher Ayn Rand. She was famous for her novels celebrating self-interest and free-market capitalism such as Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Her basic line of reasoning is that altruism is self-destructive of our most important possession; ourselves. The supreme value is the individual’s existence and since we have only one life to live it is immoral to ask one to sacrifice this life for the sake of others.
One problem with this line of reasoning is that it presupposes that there are only two options. As we discussed in the lecture on psychological egoism, being concerned about the welfare of others is not necessarily at odds with being concerned with oneself. From Rand’s perspective, it seems that the only way to express concern for others is to completely sacrifice one’s welfare. This, of course, is not necessary.
The third argument for ethical egoism is that it is compatible with our common-sense moral intuitions. According to this view, egoism is the best theory to explain the duties we have to others such as the duty not to harm others, not to lie, and to keep our promises. In each case, the main argument for having these duties is that it is in our best interest.
But, ethical egoism also fails here because it cannot demonstrate that it is always in our best interest not to lie or harm others. And, of course, from the perspective of the egoist, if it is in fact in our best interest to lie or harm others this is exactly what we should do. So, it appears that ethical egoism is not always in line with our common sense notions of morality. Also, egoism doesn’t seem to be able to explain the fundamental reason why certain actions are right to do. As Rachels points out, egoism cannot adequately explain why it is morally right to contribute money to help people who are suffering from famine. This seems like a good example of something common sense would tell us is morally correct. But, ethical egoism couldn’t explain why. The answer does not exclusively if at all, involve our self-interest. The main reason we should contribute money is to help starving people!
In addition to these problems, there are also three arguments against ethical egoism. Two of these arguments may be very confusing. Specifically, these are the argument that egoism cannot handle conflicts of interest and the argument that egoism is logically inconsistent. The third argument, that egoism is arbitrary, should be clearer.
The argument that ethical egoism cannot handle conflicts of interest is illustrated by the example of B and K given by Kurt Baier in his book The Moral Point of View. The idea is that egoism doesn’t give us a method to resolve cases where one person’s interests conflict with another’s. But, this is precisely what an ethical theory should do. Of course, the egoist might simply say that this is how life works. Sometimes our interests conflict with others and we can only resolve this by one person prevailing over another. Harsh, but true perhaps.
The second argument is that ethical egoism is logically inconsistent. Rachels outlines this complex argument in 9 steps. The main point is that egoism seems to entail that the same action is both right and wrong at the same time which, of course, is contradictory. But, the contradiction can be eliminated if we eliminate premise 5 from the argument which says “it is wrong to prevent someone from doing his duty.” The ethical egoist would probably not accept this premise anyway so we are unable to destroy egoism using this line of reasoning.
A third possible argument against ethical egoism is that it is unacceptably arbitrary. Ethical egoism maintains that only my interests count and I should act to further those interests. But what makes me so different from everyone else? Why am I so special? If you think about it you discover that there’s no good reason for singling one person out as better or more special. We’re all the same in our desire for happiness and our right to be treated with respect and dignity. Unless there are any relevant differences between ourselves and everyone else we cannot justify different treatment. If my desire for happiness should be fulfilled and if my basic needs should be met so too should everyone else’s. There’s no good argument for disregarding the interests of others. This seems to be a solid argument against ethical egoism and should encourage us to seek out a theory that addresses the welfare of others.