Egoism (philosophy)

Egoism is a philosophical concept positing that self-interest is the primary aim of all human beings. Three types of egoism exist, each with its own moral implications: psychological, ethical, and rational egoism. Despite the name and definition of the term, however, egoism is not directly synonymous with selfishness or greed, but rather includes some strong elements of humanitarianism.

Three Types of Egoism

Each of the three types of egoism, although appearing quite different on their surfaces, possesses at its core the concept of human self-interest. Nevertheless, they each raise questions concerning people's relationships to ethics, empathy, altruism, motivation, and rationality.

Psychological Egoism

Psychological egoism asserts that the singular, supreme goal of all people is to maximize their own welfare, or the state of being happy, healthy, or successful. In this theory, egoistical individuals devote all of their thoughts and actions on increasing their own happiness. They rarely behave altruistically or for any sense of greater purpose other than their own self-interest.

However, psychological egoistic actions do not always appear as such to observers. Even those who are devoted only to themselves may be seen assisting others or otherwise engaging in selfless behavior. However, to a psychological egoist, these kinds of actions are considered only means to the ultimate end of self-interest; such individuals would readily help others only if acting in this way would benefit them somehow.

The concept of "means to ends" has been a point of some contention in the philosophical study of psychological egoism. The eighteenth-century English philosopher Joseph Butler disagreed with the theory, arguing that since human welfare is derived from various individual means, people must also desire these means as pathways to their happiness.

Subscribers to the psychological egoism theory respond by arguing that happiness is the only goal humans endeavor to achieve, and that people desire the means to their happiness only if these means hold some intrinsic value for them. In such cases, the act of completing these activities would in fact be the happiness desired by the person. Even helping someone else may in itself contribute to a person's happiness, according to psychological egoists, if, by providing that help, that person's need to feel power over another is satisfied.

Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism adds another dimension to the claim that people desire only their own happiness. This form of egoism proposes that human action must be moralistic for it to produce happiness for its actor; it must take others into account, to some degree, in an effort to receive from them what they can provide for the individual's happiness. This mutual cooperation is based on a kind of punishment-and-reward system, in which people not treating others morally could result in those people not achieving what they require for happiness.

An example is two individuals who become friends for the mutual benefits that friendship and affiliation bring, such as companionship, assistance with problems, and good mental health. Because possessing these benefits is in each of the individuals' best interests, the friends will treat each other morally and respectfully, knowing that to fail in these duties would be to lose their sources of personal happiness.

According to an ethical egoist, this is the only type of situation in which a person is expected to care for others. If, for any reason, a person discovers that another person is incapable of reciprocating the benefits that he or she provides, the person holds no more responsibility to consider the other person's well-being.

Related to this is the concept of payoff, or the benefit gained from an action. Whereas other, more mainstream moral theories assert that people must always choose the moral action that will provide the most assistance to those being helped, ethical egoism dictates that people will act morally only in the way that provides the largest payoff to them.

For example, standard morality suggests that the benefits of contributing funds to a widespread famine-relief charity would far outweigh the benefits of donating money to the renovation project of a local cultural venue. In the ethical egoist's view, however, aiding famine victims in another country would provide no tangible benefit for him or her, whereas assisting the venue's reconstruction efforts would allow the individual to enjoy future performances there more fully. This, then, represents the ethical egoist's logical process of determining which moral actions to take.

Rational Egoism

Stated in its simplest form, rational egoism claims that an action must be rational for it to bring about a person's happiness. Additionally, the rationality of an act is determined by the ways in which the act satisfies the preferences of the individual. Once these preferences are met, the person is said to have achieved happiness. For instance, a rational egoist might help someone overcome a problem and expect no favor in return, simply because doing so is the person's preference. On its surface, this does not appear to be an egotistical act, but if it ultimately helps to produce some happiness for the actor, it must be considered rationally egoistic.

Objectors to rational egoism posit that the theory allows for completely arbitrary decision making that often appears immoral and not beneficial to anyone. If individuals refuse to contribute to charity, for example, on the grounds that aiding humanity would not produce any personal happiness, this would be said to be a rationally egoistical act for the individuals. To objectors, this decision would not be morally acceptable.

These same individuals can then claim that all people of a certain race, hair color, or eye color should be given charity because that would personally please them. These actors would deny that such decisions showed arbitrary discrimination, arguing, for instance, that seeing all blue-eyed people receive special aid would meet their personal preferences and therefore increase their happiness. If this is the only justification provided by these individuals for their seemingly random preferences, enemies of rational egoism would again label their actions arbitrary and, therefore, lacking in any real moral content.

Rational egoists could counter this objection by stating that their desires are not random but rather result from their nature, as in the case of an individual's preference for certain foods. In this context, rational egoists would argue that their arbitrary decisions are ordered.

Bibliography

Garrett, Aaron. "Joseph Butler's Moral Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 16 July 2015. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/butler-moral/

Hooker, Brad. "Egoism, Partiality, and Impartiality." The Oxford Handbook of the History of Ethics. Ed. Roger Crisp. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, 714. Print.

Shaver, Robert. "Egoism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. 4 Nov. 2002. Web. 16 July 2015. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/