Ethical egoism is concerned with the motives that people ought to have, the view acknowledges that people can choose to act altruistically, but condemns such actions when they do happen. It is centered on the assertion that such a principle would produce a enhanced humankind; if superior pleasure occur to those who practice their personal gain, subsequently the more individuals who accomplish this the better. Actions such as theft, and helping others, are acceptable only because they are instrumentally virtuous, not because they have any intrinsic worth. If an individual helped others, then the individual would count on help from those whom were helped.
In the act of war, one might sacrifice their life in order to save entire drove, seemingly placing their selfishness aside. Although the intent seems to derive form a altruistic intention, the motive may be that death of the individual would be better than a lifetime of living with guilt, or even countless other selfish incentives. Most people like thinking of themselves as altruistic, that they would sacrifice themselves for the greater good, even if the greater good is not a means to their personal satisfaction in anyway. People often misrepresent their motivations. Most will agree that there are certain actions that will produce pleasure and some that produce pain. When we know that if an action will produce pain, then it is our natural inclination to not want to do it, as when the action produces pleasure we want to execute the task to receive the gratification. Self preservation is the foremost human instinct, so ethical egoism exists in everyone. When a moment of truth comes, and an individual has their back against the wall, they will choose an action that they believe will contribute them the greatest amount of satisfaction. The hopeful satisfaction may be derived from a multitude of motives where the only intent of the individual, is to receive the satisfaction of their action. Any action that is deemed to be one of an altruistic motivation, would actually have a motive driven out of fear, acceptance, religious beliefs, and other hidden egotistical motives at some level. An egotistic person, would not murder, since jail, death and social outcast does not bring about their best self-intrest. The incentive behind deciding not to murder may be deemed not moral by most, but the end action still brings about a favorable outcome. Many motives produce the same consequences, the result of best self-intrest could not be obtained unless, one was
In the scenario of a drowning boy,
egoism are necessary evils which allow human beings to grow and to thrive. It is selfishness that fuels our very existance. We recognize the need to feed and clothe ourselves. In doing so, we are using resources that someone else might need. However, our selfishness often benefits someone else. Selfishness will compel a man to court a woman, to win her affections from a rival. However, in doing so, he is working towards providing security and love for his mate (in theory). He provides safety and comfort for his children (hopefully). He ensures a new generation for his species. The selfishness in his acts - to triumph over his rival, to begin and protect his progeny - ensure the survival of himself and his family, and the survival of those on whom he depends to feed, clothe, and shelter them.
The “greater good” will succeed for everyone, if everyone pursues their own self-interest. Why? Because everyone knows their own needs best; or because people are more motivated when they're looking out for number one; or because charity is degrading to the recipient.
Thus, to justify Ethical Egoism there needs to be a characteristic that everyone has that sets him or her above everyone else in all situations
Ethical egoism might appear to differ a great deal in content from standard moral theories. Moral theories such as Kantianism, utilitarianism, and common-sense morality require that the interest of others is also a key componet of a morally
One of the problems with this position is that it might not be in one's self-interest to have eveyone act from the perspective of self-interest. This 'state of nature' would not be desirable (in Hobbes' terms, life would be "beastly, brutal, and short") and so it might ultimately be in one's self-interest to enter into a contract with others that would place restraints upon self-interested actions.
Ethical egoism would object to such altruistic actions, because it is indeed illogical. Such an altruistic duty implies standard of value that is actually detrimental to us, and a moral or ethical theory that directs us to act to your detriment requires a dubious moral standard of value. Even religious doctrines, which usually stress some form of self-sacrifice do not claim to be harmful to their followers. Ethical egoism resolves the conflict between self-serving and other-directed actions by saying that we should only act in our own self-interest.
A useful approach to explain ethical egoism can be found by asking two questions – first, “What is the goal of moral conduct?” from which follows: “What is the basic standard of moral conduct?” According to ethical egoism, the first one can be answered as “one’s life” and the second “enlightened self-interest.”
The first answer is such because it comes from a basic moral choice that everyone must make – that is to live or die. If we answer, “to die,” then no further morality is necessary, as death prevents the ability to make any other choices. If we answer, “to live” however, we must confront reality. Without getting into any specific doctrine of ethical egoism, we can say that in order to live, we must act in a way that furthers our own survival, and reality is such that acting in our enlightened self interest is the only action that will lead to that goal, because to act in the interest of others while neglecting our interests will lead to our demise.
Perhaps the most convincing aspect of ethical egoism is that it answers a necessary question in a necessary way -- that is, we must decide whether to live to live or die, and we must choose to take care of our lives if we choose to live. Its primary goal is “life” and its standard of value is “does this action lead to my self interest?”
A possible objection is to act how “one’s life” is a better standard of value then “the public good,” “society,” “the children,” “virtue,” or “the ten commandments.” The reply is that self interest comes from a choice we have to make –that is to live or to die. There is nothing natural or automatic about any of these other choices, but self-interest comes from a choice we must consciously or unconsciously make and act (or not act) on in order to live.
Another objection is to ask why there can only be one standard – why “society” or “everyone’s utility” cannot be additional values. The reply is that while these can be consequential duties, they must serve only as an end to self-interest, because once again, there is nothing inherent about them. A similar reply can be applied to all sorts of societal duty theories –that is those that put forth a doctrine of some sort of a debt to society. The entire notion of paying back debts is not inherently good in itself, but comes from the idea that it is in one’s self-interest to fulfill obligations.
Objectivism
From this theory, the ideas that Ayn Rand presents follow naturally. She argues for a form of strong egoism –that is, rational selfishness, and discredits the idea of an involuntary debt to society or other individuals. There are several responses to objections typically raised to her philosophy that can further clarify her positions.
The most common argument raised is to dispute rationality and reason as the step in between self-interest and morality. It is argued that right acts can be determined by some other means such as intuition, feelings, religion, socials mores and perhaps even mystical revelations such as the Ten Commandments as revealed by God. In particular, intuition and feelings are often claimed to be equally valid means of determining morality. While it is true that we are often able to make an immediate moral judgment without resorting to logic, Objectivism would hold that emotions are simple immediate reactions based on the values and judgments we hold. As such, they may be imitated from society or arrived at independently, but they must be the result of a rational choice.
Another common argument against Objectivism hold that there does not have to be only one goal of moral conduct, that self-interest may be supplement by altruism or concern for others to some degree. The response to this is that there is no intrinsic basis for a moral claim held by other individuals against each other. If one tried to argue that altruism is to ones benefit, than that would no longer be altruism, and all similar selfless forms of concern for the common good face the same dilemma. Any involuntary form of obligation to society lacks a self-interested justification, and that obligation which is viewed as beneficial to oneself, is by definition, no longer altruism.
Finally, there is the claim that Objectivism confuses the goal or moral conduct and the standard of moral conduct -- that is, while the self (one’s life) can be a goal, self-interest or reason may not necessarily be the appropriate means to that goal. The response here is that a moral goal of “life” requires a standard of rational self interest to achieve it. For example, suppose that charitable woman on the street hesitated for a second before giving money to the beggar, and asked herself – “What the goal of my actions? She might answer –“my life”. She would then ask herself -- “How can I judge my actions to determine if they are compatible with my value of life?” The answer then, is “reason” as it is the only true method available to evaluate potential actions. Finally, the woman would reach the conclusion that those actions which with reason she evaluates to be most beneficial to her self-interest are right, and those against it her self-interest, are wrong. This chain of thinking presents a coherent argument for the Objectivist view of morality and ethics.
