note: freecog contributor, albert L berriz, has disputed select claims made in this post. You can find the disputed points under the comments section.
While it may not be completely evident from the few discussions thus far on this site, one familiar with my views and those of other contributors will likely find many points on which we disagree. Oftentimes, I may end up appearing the "bad guy" in these discussions, perhaps even (mistakenly) called a "shallow, cold-hearted, self-centered bastard". I am not going to present myself as a pillar of moral virtue, but I will try to show that my approach is not wholly groundless. A great deal of the discrepancies between others' philosophies and my own can be attributed to the fact that I take an Egoist stance on morality and decision-making.
Now, it is vital that I clarify a few things about Egoism, because it is (a little) more complicated than most assume. It has the misfortune of being etymologically similar (perhaps not entirely undeservedly) to "egotistical" and other such words, all of which have negative connotations. Egoism has a few different varieties, which all stem from the same basic idea, namely, basing ones actions on their benefit to ones' self. Psychological Egoism is the statement that everyone acts for their own self interest, as an observational claim, while it may or may not be accurate, it is not our focus. The type of Egoism I ascribe to is the moral, "Normative" Egoism. This is the idea that people should act in order to benefit oneself. This view is not supported by society, and as a result it is repulsive to many people, but as intelligent freethinkers, we must try to go beyond our environment-instilled prejudices. It is also important to note that Egoism is not synonymous to hedonism, which is the pursuit of immediate gratification. In fact, there is a school of Egoism that holds that we should all be "ethical egoists", namely maximizing 'good' for oneself and making sure one always does the 'right' action. However, the initial, stronger view of Egoism is the one I support. My reasons are simple. From the experience of individual consciousness, it is frankly the approach that makes the most sense. As Nietzsche affirms, "In the final analysis, one experiences only one's self". Joseph Conrad also lends a voice, for "we live as we dream -- alone." Egoism stands as the most sensible of approaches as long as complications do not enter the picture, such as religion and absolute morality, but these concepts lack solid philosophical foundation, and Egoism prevails.
It would not be quite fair of me to simply demonstrate one side of the issue, so I will explain some of the opponents of Egoism and explore their arguments. The polar opposite of Egoism is Altruism, which states that each person should do the maximum benefit to everyone but themself. The other, perhaps more prevailing, view is Utilarianism, which supports acting for the maximum net benefit of all. A main argument these philosophers use is the examples of cases where the benefit to each individual is in fact greater if everyone does not act for themselves, based on the idea that people can ultimately do more good for other people than for themselves, so in the end each person receives a greater benefit. This is in fact true, and has mathematical application, largely developed in response to Adam Smith and his theory of capitalism (which is based on Egoist principles applied to a socioeconomic situation, an error explained below). For example, Pyrrho's professor is stuck in a ditch. Helping him would not give Pyrrho any real immediate benefit, but the cost of helping is lower than the benefit it gives the professor. Therefore, If everyone helps other people out of ditches, the benefit is greater than if no one helps people out of ditches (the Egoist approach). It would appear that a utilarian approach would benefit the person more.
I argue against this analysis, however, as it misreads the purpose of an Egoist philosophy. Egoism is an individual enterprise (hence the root of 'ego' referring to the self). It is incompatible with social situations. Consider this example. You live in a country of over a billion people, about to have an election. Candidate A promises $100 to everyone who votes for him. Candidate B promises $1000 to everyone, but only if he wins. Clearly it is better for everyone, even (especially) the egoist, if candidate B wins. The utilarian and altruist would vote for candidate B. Yet the chance that a single individual would be the deciding vote in a country of a billion is infintesimal. To the egoist, the 100% chance of getting an extra $100 far outweighs the tiny chance that his vote will lose him $1000 (if you don't get it, imagine the $100 is $999.99). The point is, Egoism is not a philosophy for everyone. In fact, it goes against Egoist principles to support it for others. To the Egoist, everyone else should be an Altruist. The Egoist doesn't want anyone else to share his view, or he wouldnt get the extra $1000. This demonstrates how Egoism pits the individual uncompromisably against society. It also shows that Egoism is not a philosophy for PEOPLE, but rather for PERSONS. Egoism is not a viable social philosophy. Once this distinction is understood, discrepancies between philosophies can be much better appreciated. My favorite philosophers, such as Nietzsche and Machiavelli, (who does support individual freedom) fall under the category of philosophy for the PERSON, while many of the favorites of my fellow contributor Mr. Berriz, such as Socrates, involve philosophy for PEOPLE. While they sometimes lead, understandably, to different conclusions, this does not mean that either side is "wrong". However, given the limitations of our experience (See quotes by Nietzsche and Conrad above), ultimately, Egoism is the view I must adhere to. The key to true "free thought" is individual in nature, and therefore must remove one from the influence of society.
Now, to stem the tide of hypocrisy I have committed by even showing you this, I beg all of you to ignore the evil, maleficent, morally cancerous ideas of Egoism, and follow the edicts of Altruism, working to benefit others (especially me).
4.27.2005
egoism vs altruism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It is important to understand the philosophical ideas and distinctions made throughout this post, and they are presented well. However, there is one aspect in which I think there is a very significant misrepresentation of people in general. Eriatlov makes the claim, “[Altruism] is not supported by society, and as a result it is repulsive to many people, but as intelligent freethinkers, we must try to go beyond our environment-instilled prejudices.” This is very misleading. It leads us to think that society is filled with mindless altruists who can not think for themselves, accompanied by the rare freethinking egoist. This could not be farther from reality, and as Machiavelli says, let us look at what is, not what ought to be.
People, or rather, persons are egoistic. This is true of the vast majority of people on this planet—we tend to put our own needs ahead of anyone else’s quite consistently. This is by no means an insult. Almost everyone on the planet would sooner spend their last ten dollars on a meal for themselves rather than sending it away to another starving individual—that is the way things are, whether this is good or bad I leave for another discussion. By nature humans are egocentric beings; we are necessarily egoists. In order to satisfy self-preservation we must be egoists, and so nearly everyone is. It is extremely easy and common to be an egoist. There are very few people out there that realistically put other people ahead of themselves on a regular basis, and this is simply undeniable. Altruists are few and far between. It is indeed common to find someone who puts a few people above himself, such as close family or friends, but this simply a variation of the egoist. It is exceedingly rare to find a true altruist that puts the well being of all human beings ahead of the reletively unimportant, from an objective perspective, value of their own life. Alturism is difficult. Altruism is an uphill battle because it is definitionally against human nature (self-preservation) to be an altruist. It may be true that many profess some sort of altruistic tendency, but the actual practice of altruistic behavior is almost unheard of. It is the practical application of the two philosophies that is most significant. Marx repeatedly makes this clear by declaring the prominence of reality over that of mere ideas. And as I mentioned, Machiavelli’s work reiterates this sentiment.
In sum, the claim that it is easier to be an altruist than an egoist is definitionally wrong based on the tendencies of human nature. It is far easier to be an egoist than an altruist, and this is demonstrated in society in that egoists outnumber altruists inordinantly.
Whether or not an altruistic philosophy is better than a egoistic philosophy, or vice versa, I leave for another time. This is not the issue that I wish to address through this brief commentary, as I hope I have made clear.
I would just like to respond to the above post. Firstly, there may be a typo, when in an early paragraph you mention my stating that [altruism] is not supported by society. In my post at least, the word in the parentheses should be [egoism]. Anyhoo, as to the meat of the comment, I agree that there may be an implication that there are waves of altruists and a few freethinking egoists. I did not mean it in quite that light. Earlier I do mention the belief that everyone, or almost everyone, acts out of self interest, known as psychological egoism. I would agree that this is probably accurate, as are your claims about most people rather spending money on themselves, etc. Most of these "psychological egoists" are not freethinkers at all. However, the issue I really concern myself with is MORAL normative egoism, that people SHOULD do this. If you were to ask the majority of people, even though, as you say, they would spend their last dollars on themselves, most would argue that it is more "right" to spend it on others, and a great many would profess their own strong moral leanings towards helping others (hypocritically). In the practical aspect, egoism is almost certainly the majority, but in terms of moral sentiments, and indeed in most philosophical circles of the past and present, the Egoist approach has been a minority. I also would like to clarify that I do not claim that it is easier to be an altruist than it is to be an egoist, as it is in fact much more difficult. In fact, being an altruist leads to many very complicated and often paradoxical moral dilemmas, while egoism is a relatively simple guideline. I refer one to the post on Occam's razor for insight as to why this is not a bad thing. I agree that human nature is in strong support of egoism as well, and accounts for the prevalence of egoism in our society, as you state. However, our society, capitalism perhaps excluded, strongly supports moral altruism, as can be seen in the teachings of virtually all religions. In summary: the majority of people practice egoism, due to the tendency of human nature to self interest. However, the majority would claim altruism as the "right" morality, due to the influences of society. Altruism is the more difficult set of guidelines to ascribe to, but only a masochist or a fool would use this as a reason to follow it. Thank you for helping clarify those points, which I admit were not stressed enough in my own analysis.
Maybe if everyone was altruists then that might be good, but since everyone isnt...then egoism is a smarter choice because you need to protect yourself when others wont
In between "Egoism" and "Altruism", it's difficult to approach only on one particular one. To balance up, we have to be "Egoism" and "Altruism". The rationale behind it is that, "how can I benefit the others, if I don't benefit myself first?".
I guess, we have to distinguish between "Selfishism" and "Egoism". "Selfishism" keeps everything to himself; perhaps "Egoism" bears the idea of "benefit self before the others"?
Hmmmm... even the Scientists, Biologist etc are practising "Egoism", don't you think so? The reason I mentioned this is because, no doubt the experiments they done are for the goods of the others. However, they are the one who firstly got the "benefits" out of it.
After they tasted the benefits, only they passed the benefits to the others. At this point, comes the "Altruism".
In my personal point of view, I think the proper word to use in replacing "Altruism" is "Symbiosis"? He who gets benefits from others also benefiting the others?
This web site is actually amazing, really worth studying
Exceptional mission! I've recently been looking for topics exactly as intriguing as this. Awaiting the following post.
Many thanks for an excellent article which helped me to along the way, I am pleased for all your energy in studying and also scripting this blog
This website is actually amazing, really worth reading
We appreciate the data. Congratulations!
Appreciate your discussing. Quite simple and very simple to grasp. Done well!
Post a Comment