Egoism vs Altruism

In this episode of Ethics Explored, the main topics are altruism and egoism. Egoism is the belief that individuals should prioritize their self-interest, while altruism is the practice of selfless concern for others. There are three types of egoism: ethical, rational, and psychological. Ethical egoism states that individuals should act in their best interest, while rational egoism argues that it is rational to prioritize self-interest. Psychological egoism suggests that human behavior is motivated by self-interest and denies the possibility of altruism. However, this argument falls apart upon closer examination. Altruism can involve mixed motives or be purely selfless. Ayn Rand critiques pure altruism and self-sacrifice, arguing that individuals have the right to exist for their own sake. In the world we live in, the better off others are, the better off we will be. This positive-sum game means that our self-interest is interconnected with the interests of others. The idea of egoism Hello and welcome back to Ethics Explored. Today's topics will be two fundamental perspectives on human behavior, altruism and egoism. To give a basic introduction to the two concepts, egoism is a theory centered around the idea that people should prioritize their self-interest above the interests of others. Altruism, on the other hand, refers to the practice of selfless concern and the prioritization of others' well-being. So let's start off with egoism. There's essentially three types that people refer to when talking about egoism. There's ethical egoism, rational egoism, and psychological egoism. Ethical egoism is a normative theory that explains how individuals should behave. It states that it's your moral obligation to do what's in your best interest, what will maximize your well-being in the long run. Rational egoism is similar except for the fact that it isn't so much have to do with morality, but rather argues it's the rational thing to do what's in your best interest and well-being. Psychological egoism is the type of egoism most often referred to in the version we will be discussing today. It's a descriptive theory that explains human behavior is ultimately motivated by self-interest and it basically denies the possibility of an altruistic act. Now, a problem arises in this idea that we are always motivated by desire and it's best described in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on altruism, where it states, if a desire is simply identified with whatever internal state moves someone to act, then the claim what motivates us to act is always desire when spelled out more fully is a tautology. It says, the internal state that moves us to act is always the internal state that moves us to act. That is not a substantive insight into human psychology, but a statement of identity of the form A equals A. You might have thought we were learning something about what causes action by being told what motivates people is always desire, but if desire is just a term for whatever it is that motivates us, we're learning nothing. So, this argument for psychological egoism seems to fall apart when more closely examined and its explanation seems to be nothing but an empty statement. Now let's expand some more on altruism. There's weaker and stronger versions and in weaker ones, altruistic acts need not involve self-sacrifice. So, an act may have a mixture of motives, some that are self-interested, and it could still be an altruistic act. Pure altruism, however, is a much stronger version and it disagrees with its weaker counterpart. A purely altruistic act is one that is entirely devoid of any self-interest. So, there's nothing that you can gain from it. This idea is separate from self-sacrificing behavior where you give up something. Now, there's an argument to be had here that the enjoyment and happiness you get from a purely altruistic act is something to gain and therefore defeats the purpose. Or with the idea of self-sacrificing, doing anything for another person that you gain nothing from could be seen as a sacrifice of your time, energy, and focus, which could otherwise be used in your interest. Psychological egoism has stronger and weaker versions as well, and generally it rejects the idea of pure altruism, while weaker versions of egoism may accept weaker versions of altruism, like the idea of an act with mixed motivations being somewhat altruistic. This idea of pure altruism or self-sacrifice was heavily critiqued by Ayn Rand in her interview on altruism where she states, There can be no benevolence for man unless one recognizes man's basic moral and political rights to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself, which is precisely what altruism denies. She's addressing a mixture of pure altruism and self-sacrifice. In that type of rigid form, she explains that there can be no room for benevolence when we're being regarded as objects of sacrifice rather than establishing our right to exist for ourselves. And this makes sense, but this type of altruism is practically never what's being referred to when people talk about altruism. In the world that we currently live in, the more people that want the same thing as you, the more likely you are to get it. For example, a cure for a disease. If more people want it, then there's more money for resources on research to find that disease. As brilliantly explained in the video by Kurzzak, we are now living in a positive-sum game, meaning that there's no longer a need to steal from others to gain, quite literally the opposite. Other people prospering leads to you prospering. The better off everyone's life generally is, the better off your life will be. The core of our technological evolution is new ideas and innovation. The more people that have access to schooling and basic needs, the more people are able to contribute to our technological evolution. And this is in everyone's best interest. The demand for new ideas and the amount of ideas being produced both increase. I believe that your self-interest in the long run involves doing what's best not just for yourself, but doing what's best for your partner, for your children, and for your community. Your self-interest is not a completely separate thing from theirs. In fact, in the big picture, we've already established that our best interests as humanity are very interconnected. And therefore this idea of egoism and altruism doesn't really make sense. Egoistic activity and altruistic activity in reality generally refer to the same thing. This idea of pure altruism seems redundant and there's fundamentally no difference between your self-interest and the interests of others. The idea that your self-interest is in opposition to others, or if you want to maximize your desires and interests, you must do it at others' expense, is founded on a very inaccurate idea of what actually constitutes as truly being in your best interest. You have to recognize that you and the world around you are so closely intertwined that you want to act in a way that's good for you, but also good for everyone else at the same time, because when it comes down to it, it's essentially all the same. The key is to view your world as an extension of yourself. Anyway, that's all for today. Thank you for tuning in, and remember that if you can learn to more broadly conceptualize the world around you, you'll realize that this idea of selfish self-interest does not exist.