4 - Egoism

Two Philosophies of Egoism:  (Often Believed in Psychology, Economics, and Politics) 

Selfishness: The Question:  Are Humans limited animals, existing only for individual survival?  Should they be?

  Can there be any ethics or ethical action if we are all controlled by selfishness, or if we should be selfish?  

Egoism:  Definition:  Putting the self first, selfishness.

  The philosophies of Egoism come in two very distinct categories:

1. Psychological Egoism argues that we, and every human, are selfish because we have no other choice.

2. Ethical Egoism argues that we do have a choice, and we are ethically required to chose to be selfish.

  Sometimes, without thinking, the same person will hold both of these contradictory ideas at the same time.

The Contradiction

  Let's talk about the contradiction first, then we will look at what's wrong with Psychological Egoism.

  In economic theory, some will argue that we are all selfish and greedy because we can be no other way, and, at the same time, argue that we must be selfish and greedy. Greed, they say, is the only way to survive and is the best way to survive.

  This is a contradiction.

  If we have no other chose, then we cannot make an ethical decision.

  If we have no choice, then we cannot chose to perform good deeds or bad deeds.

  If we have no choice, then we cannot say that we should be selfish, because we are biologically forced to act in a selfish way. We cannot say we make an "ethical decision."

  We have to critically decide whether we agree that human are always selfish, and therefore lack all ability to make ethical decisions. Then we can conclude whether humans are forced to be selfish, or whether we can and should chose to be selfish, or whether there is some choice other than selfishness.

Psychological Egoism

  Psychological Egoism argues that human are always selfish, and therefore lack all ability to make ethical decisions.

  However, observation tells us that survival can include decisions that balance, on the one hand, (a) self-interest, such as immediate sensual gratification, and, on the other hand, (b) enlightened self-interest that looks to the benefits of:

(i) delaying gratification, such as gaining a college degree, or

(ii) helping others with the anticipation of, or the side effect of, self-gain.

  Survival can include, in addition, not acting selfishly, but instead, taking action to benefit others, which is called altruism.

  Survival can also include a decision to hurt others.

  We have the power of ethical decision-making to chose between helping others and hurting others. To say that we can only seek self-interest overlooks this basic choice.

  To say that we "feel good" when we help others, and, therefore, helping others is selfish, denies that some people can "feel good" when they sometimes do things to harm others.

  In short, Psychological Egoism makes no sense because it denies that we all have the choice to help or to hurt others. "Feeling good" about the action does not change whether it was good or bad.

  In fact, isn't feeling good about doing the right thing exactly what we want ethical theory to encourage?

  Psychological Egoism is a theory deeply embedded in our culture. Even people who do not believe in Darwin's biological theory of the survival of the fittest will stoutly argue for a Darwin Economics, that economically we can only survive through survival of the fittest, by selfish actions, or even harmful ones. Some people insist that especially in economics we have no choice but to act selfishly.

  These statement overlook the actions of altruism, charity, kindness to family, friends, and strangers. Each of these can make us "feel good," and each of these, at different times and in differing amounts, can make our survival stronger and more enjoyable.

  Psychological Egoism, as I said, is a very popular idea. However, as long as someone keeps acting in ways that do not harm others and bring about a certain amount of harmony with others and well-being, then holding this false idea is not bad in itself. It is confusing, but not necessarily bad.

  Next, let's talk about Ethical Egoism.

"Ethical Egoism"

  This theory argues we should be selfish, even when it causes harm to others. The only limit is the fear of punishment.

  These are not people we want to choose to be our friends.

  They cause harm, feel good about it, and feel they are doing the right thing.

  However, if we should all seek selfishness only, then do we have a duty to help others be selfish? In fact, to be consistent, shouldn't the ethical egoist insist that others should harm him or her so that others can also be ethical egoists?

  This endless circle of harm to others and harm to self is one of the contradictions of "Ethical Egoism."

  Another contradiction is that it isn't really a theory of ethics at all. It can be called an anti-ethical theory, but not an ethical one. Ethics is all about making the right choice and doing good. "Ethical Egoism" argues that we should do harm.

  Socrates said that ethics means we should, "First, do no harm." Yet, the ethical egoists have no problem with causing harm, don't disapprove of others also causing harm, and, at times, encourage it.

  "Ethical egoism" is popular and is advocated in the novels of Ayn Rand, and by some popular politicans.