Ethical Egoism
From KIAwiki
Ethical egoism is the position that moral persons ought to do what is purely in their own self-interest alone, without compromising their interests to those of others. It is important to distinguish this from psychological egoism, the controversial claim that people are only capable of acting in their own interest. Psychological egoism is a claim about how people do act, not a claim about how they ought to act. Ethical egoism is also distinct from rational egoism which logically holds that it is only rational to act in one's self-interest and irrational to act altruistically, and individualism, which champions self-reliance, neither of which posit that acting in one's self-interest is necessary to act in a morally right way. The moral emphasis in these arguements refers to the desirability of the promotion of 'well being', rather than any dualistic notion of 'good and evil', often in opposition to purely rational or conventional aims.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral persons have an ethical obligation to help or serve others. Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral persons to disregard the well-being of others, nor does it require that a moral person refrains from considering the well-being of others in moral deliberation. What is in a person's self-interest may be secondarily detrimental to, beneficial to, or neutral in its effect on others. It allows for the possibility of either as long as what is chosen is most efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the individual.
Ethical egoism is sometimes the philosophical basis for people's support of libertarianism or anarchism, political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action. This can be a socially benevolent creed or a harsher doctrine of 'social Darwinism'.
Variants of Egoism
Three different formulations of ethical egoism have been identified: individual, personal and universal. An individual ethical egoist would bizarrelly hold that all people should do whatever benefits himself; A personal ethical egoist, that he should solely act in his own self-interest, but makes no claims about what anyone else ought to do, while universal ethical egoists argue that everyone should act in ways that serve their own interest.
A philosophy holding that one should be honest, just, benevolent etc, because those virtues serve one's self-interest is egoistic; while one holding that one should practice those virtues for reasons other than self-interest is altruistic and not egoistic, but holding that one should be self-centred regardless of any damage one's self-interest (by making many enemies for instance) is insane rather than egotistic.
Max Stirner was the first philosopher to call himself an egoist and argued that universal well being could result from it. Others, such as Thomas Hobbes and David Gauthier, have argued that the conflicts which arise when people each pursue their own ends can be resolved for the best of each individual only if they all voluntarily forgo some of their aims — that is, one's self-interest is often best pursued by allowing others to pursue their self-interest as well so that liberty is equal among individuals. Sacrificing one's short-term self-interest in order to maximize one's long-term self-interest is one form of "rational self-interest" which is the idea behind most philosophers' advocacy of ethical egoism. Noted egoist Ayn Rand contended that there was a harmony of interest among humans, so that a moral agent could not rationally harm another person but this is less convincing.
As Nietzsche (in Beyond Good and Evil) and Alasdair MacIntyre (in After Virtue) are famous for pointing out, the ancient Greeks did not associate morality with altruism in the way that post-Christian Western civilization has done. Aristotle's view, for example, is that we have duties to ourselves as well as to other people and to the polis as a whole. Nietzsche's version of Egoism largely parallels Stirner's optimism, but regards ethics as a personal aesthetic, and the whole process under the influence of social and material forces over which we have limited control.
The term ethical egoism has been applied retroactively to philosophers such as Bernard de Mandeville (1670 – 1733) and to many other materialists of his generation, although none of them declared themselves to be egoists. Mandeville's philosophy gave great offence at the time, and has always been stigmatized as false, cynical and degrading. His main thesis is that the actions of men cannot be divided into lower and higher. The higher life of man is a mere fiction introduced by philosophers and rulers to simplify government and the relations of society. In fact, virtue (which he defined as "every performance by which man, contrary to the impulse of nature, should endeavour the benefit of others, or the conquest of his own passions, out of a rational ambition of being good") is actually detrimental to the state in its commercial and intellectual progress. This is because it is the vices (i.e., the self-regarding actions of men) which alone, by means of inventions and the circulation of capital in connection with luxurious living, stimulate society into action and progress.
Note: materialism does not necessarily imply egoism however, as indicated by Karl Marx, and the many other materialists who espoused forms of collectivist altruism. Likewise many egoists adopted a individualistic form of Communism.
Some contend that ethical egoism is implausible, and that those who advocate it seriously usually do so at the expense of redefining "self-interest" to include the interests of others. An ethical egoist might counter this by asserting that furthering the ends of others is sometimes the best means of furthering one's own ends, or that simply by allowing liberty to others one's self-interest is furthered as a result.
But ethical egoism has also been alleged as the cause for immorality. For instance, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Thomas Law, in 1814:
Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart.
This arguement assumes the validity of duty and obligation however, which most egoists deny, as well as the idea that individuals cannot be divided internally (the soul hypothesis). Some Egoists in contrast claim the ego has many conflicting aspects, shell personas or masks, around a vaguer centre, and that we are constantly relating to ourselves.
Ethical egoism is opposed not only by altruist philosophies, but is also at odds with the majority of religions. Most religions hold that ethical egoism is the product of a lack of genuine spirituality and shows an individual's submersion in greed and selfishness.
Religious egoism in contrast is a derivative of egoism where the faith is used to justify one's self interest. A weaker form of this is found in spiritual egoism. The most well known esoteric ethical egoists are Julius Evola and Anton Szandor LaVey, both adopting a conservative right wing stance. However many libertarian occultists reject their views, often adopting ideas from more secular philosophers like Max Stirner, as filtered through libertarian esotericists such as Robert Anton Wilson.
In contrast Atheist Egoists regard all religions as repressive institutions whose purpose is to supress the individual for the purpose of social control.
Adapted from Wikipedia
|
|
