In moral terms I describe myself as egoist, one who acts in accordance with one’s own rational self-interest. Opponents tend to label it “selfishness”; and in fact some proponents of rational self-interest - such as Ayn Rand - take that label themselves. I agree with much of what Rand argued, but I think her acceptance and use of the term selfishness was a tactical blunder, because once that word is used to describe one’s ethical outlook you find your viewpoint blacklisted. Like it or not but we live in times in which altruism is regarded to be one of the highest virtues. Selfishness, by comparison, is anathema.
I’ve never took to the word selfishness. I’ve always preferred the, albeit more obscure, description “rational self-interest.” In fact, I would go so far as to say that there are differences between the two. I think the difference lies in the use of the word ‘rational.’ Selfishness is self-interest without the rational element, and I’ll explain that statement later.
Whenever I’ve discussed my moral position I’ve typically faced three questions: “So, do you love your wife solely for your own benefit?” “If you were trapped in a burning building would you save yourself and let your son die?” “So, you shouldn’t really bother giving to charity then - to hell with everyone else?” Such questions as these are almost always given as rhetorical: the obvious answers being “no” to all three, and therefore the implication being that there is something wrong with rational self-interest, or at least with my claim to live according to it.
But, lets take a closer look at each of these scenarios above. I’m in a burning house and have two options: I could jump out of the window and guarantee my own survival, or I could risk my life and try to save my son too, or instead of me. Lets go even further and add that if I try to save my son I will probably die in the process. If I decide to save him does this go against my claim to live in accordance with my own rational self-interest? Surely not. I know that if I didn’t try to save my son my own life would be unbearable, my own quality of life would be drastically hindered if not ruined if I knew I saved myself and just allowed him to die. So taking the risk to save him actually is in my own rational self-interest. Perhaps a selfish person would simply save themselves. But such a person isn’t thinking of the bigger picture or the longer term effect of their actions; they aren’t acting rationally. They have no regard for how their decision will impact their own life and well-being, and they lack understanding of how the fate of other people does indeed affect us.
As a person acting in my own rational self-interest I realise that I am not an isolated individual. My own happiness is inextricably linked to the happiness of other people - not all other people, but particularly those who are my family and friends. On occasions it might well be that my longer term happiness is furthered by putting the happiness of someone else before my own immediate happiness. In extreme cases I may rightly desire to die if doing so I can save someone like my own son. It seems clear enough to me that sacrifice is consistent with a philosophy of rational self-interest.
And now to look at love. Do I only love my wife for my own benefit? I love to ask those who use this challenge why they are with their own partner. Solely for the benefit of their partner? Hardly. They first found their partner physically attractive, emotionally engaging, mentally stimulating and socially enjoyable. They therefore wanted to spend more time with their partner, because it made them happy, excited, uplifted, loved and wanted. I have yet to meet anyone who found someone ugly, emotionally repellent, mind numbingly stupid, boring, no fun to be with, and yet married them anyway out of altruistic motives. And how would someone feel upon being told by their partner that there is nothing of value in them, nothing attractive, nothing positive - that they were married out of altruistic pity. But, comes the retort, how would your wife feel if you told her you only married her for your own benefit? Again the question is misguided. Those who act for their own rational self-interest will know that their own happiness is bound up with other people - particularly those we love. Marriages are two way: my wife and I endeavour to make each other happy, and thus ultimately increase the happiness we experience over and above what we might have if we were apart. Rather than being insulting is it not a great compliment to my wife that out of 6 billion human beings on the planet I chose her as the one who can make me happier than anyone else? That in my eyes she’s the single best person alive? Love is not altruistic when it’s outside of Hollywood. To think it is is what destroys love, for it puts an unbearable demand on us: to love and give without concern for getting anything in return. Human beings aren’t built for that, and a philosophy of rational self-interest is the only one that is both realistic and true to human nature. Conceiving of love in altruistic terms might be considered romantic but it’s utterly unrealistic, and quite possibly contributes to the high divorce rates we find today.
And lastly charity. Those who act in their own rational self-interest will ignore the needs of everyone else - is that true? I must say that on occasions egoists have not given a good account of themselves. I would love Ayn Rand to have given a more positive appraisal of charity. I’ve read numerous articles from the Ayn Rand Institute which seem to disparage charity as sacrificing oneself for the benefit of others. That’s a pity. I support two charities, one of which involves sponsoring a child in the Dominican Republic. Why do that? Often capitalists are charged with putting money before everything else. But we don’t. Personal happiness is our sine qua non, which is why a capitalist will gladly pay £200 for a dinner - a loss of money in exchange for something that will bring a little bit of happiness and enjoyment. Not everything is valued according to financial return on investment, and this is one of the biggest misunderstandings in the minds of capitalism’s opponents. Sponsoring a child costs me money that I will never see again. But I enjoy doing it. I love investing in the life of a young kid, and the knowledge that I’m able to help make his life better and give him a better future in turn makes me happy and to me makes the investment worthwhile. My rational self-interest is not compromised.
Seeing the bigger picture, having a view of the long term, and realising that our own happiness is often inextricably linked to that of others is what separates rational self-interest from selfishness, and what defends it from the criticisms of altruism.
Stephen Graham
12 responses so far ↓
1 Dave Powell // Oct 22, 2007 at 1:43 pm
What I don’t get is why even bother applying that label (rational self interest) to yourself in the first place. As you have had said, you give to charity and act in the interest of your close family and friends.
I’m sure we all act in our own self interest to some extent, but the virtues of your rational self interest are the ones that it shares with altruism - a rational concern for the well being of others derived from the realisation that our own happiness is linked to everyone elses.
2 Stephen // Oct 22, 2007 at 1:49 pm
The motives between rational self-interest and altruism are very different. Altruism invites us to sacrifice ourselves for anyone anytime and thinks that doing so is virtuous. I disagree that it is. I’m not about to sacrifice myself in that way. Altruism is what lies at the foundation of the philosophy that humans are sacrificial animals to be disposed of at the whim of the collective. Afterall, if sacrificing ourselves selflessly is virtuous then what’s wrong with someone else sacrificing us? Collectivist philosophies thrive on the notion and those who embrace such philosophies are delighted with an idea that says “forget about yourself and live for other people.” That’s what ultimately plays a massive role in the jusitification of socialist and communist ideology.
S.
3 Dave Powell // Oct 22, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Isn’t it just semantics though? I’m sure no one claims to be 100% altruistic. No one is asking us to sacrifice ourselves for “anyone” at “anytime”. But I think a altruisitc act by its nature is virtuous as evidenced by the feel good factor that sponsoring a child gives you.
So, to follow your argument you could say Altruism is virtuous as long as no one is making us be Altruistic. And I don’t believe anyone is.
4 John // Oct 22, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Love this topic. Would it be accurate to say that this is a subject which happens, in this case, to deal more with motive than practice (though not necessarily so?)
5 Greg, Sacramento // Oct 22, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I suppose if the results are the same then there isn’t much harm in either. But which is RIGHT???!
6 Stephen // Oct 23, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Thanks for your responses folks. I guess Dave has raised the most pressing points, so I’ll respond to him.
Dave:
Just semantics? Semantics is concerned with the meaning of words, and the meaning of words can be of utmost importance. You say “just semantics” as if meaning doesn’t matter. But, there is quite a difference between a position in which one is motivated to act in one’s own rational self-interest and a position in which one is motivated to put others before himself whether or not it is in his own self-interest to do so, and an even bigger difference when we are being told that that we SHOULD act this way. To my mind the latter is irrational, inconsistent with human nature, dishonest, and the driving force of political oppression. Once you get people thinking of themselves as sacrificial animals whose happiness, needs and desires are secondary to those of “society” or “the collective” then you will see your freedoms eroded.
The most oppressive states in history relied on the notion that sacrificing individuals for some higher purpose was a great virtue, even the highest of all virtues. Even in mixed economies this notion of sacrifice for the greater good prevails and leads to all manner of injustice and breach of liberty. You claim that no one is forced to be altruistic? Ha! I beg to differ. What else is taxing me to provide unemployment benefit for someone else? I could multiply examples of this kind of thing but this one alone is sufficient to illustrate the point. Individuals are FORCED to sacrifice something of value so as other people can reap benefits. This has nothing to do with my happiness or desires. The sacrifice is not voluntary. It isn’t done with my own interests and happiness in mind. It isn’t out of my own desires. It’s forced altruism - the very thing you deny exists. And it’s all justified by the altruist premise: “other people come before yourself, and so they SHOULD.”
Let me end by giving an example were rational self-interest and altruism can lead to very different outcomes - lest anyone should think there is no practical difference. Lets say my son is trapped in a room of a burning building. Lets say that 4 strangers are also trapped in a different room of the building - at the opposite end. I have time to open one door and free the occupants. Altruism would tell me I should sacrifice my son, and even my own life, to save the 4 strangers. But acting in my own self-interest I would save myself and my son, because I value my life and son’s life far more than the lives of four strangers.
It is the premise of altruism that does the damage: individuals should put others before themselves and sacrifice their own happiness and wellbeing if necessary regardless of their own desires.
S.
7 Dave Powell // Oct 25, 2007 at 2:54 am
Stephen, i’ll get back to you on this one - i’m a bit busy today.
8 Stephen // Oct 25, 2007 at 11:25 am
No problem Dave. Sometimes it’s hard to find time. I often find myself juggling several things at once, and it’s not easy writing when you have lots of balls in the air
S.
9 Dave Powell // Oct 26, 2007 at 9:07 am
OK here goes; I’ve stopped playing with my balls for a minute.
Meaning does matter and there is a difference between choosing to act in a particular way and being told that we should act in a particular way. But I think you frame your argument in absolutist terms which isn’t necessary. The fact that we are obliged to pay taxes which may be used to fund things we may not agree with, doesn’t necessarily impinge on our decision to act altruistically in other areas of our life. If we have been forced to act altruistically then I would argue that we are not acting altruistically – because the decision to act didn’t come from us.
You could perform an altruistic act but that doesn’t mean that you believe other peoples interests should always come before your own in every sphere of life.
In your example, your decision to rescue your son was still an altruistic act. It may be a moral dilemma deciding who to rescue first. But given enough time I’m sure most of us would feel motivated to ensure we rescued as many people as we could.
I don’t think we need to redefine the language – we can make altruistic gestures that are reasoned and logical– there will always be some element of self interest in an altruistic decision, even if that self interest is just a warm fuzzy feeling inside that acting altruistically gave you.
10 Stephen // Oct 27, 2007 at 7:13 am
Dave:
Remember by initial post was to defend an ethic rational self-interest from some common criticisms. I don’t think you disagree with that.
Anyhow, on with the discussion. The reason why I’ve discussed the issue in absolute terms is because there is absolute difference between the premise of altruism and the premise of rational self-interest. Altruism is the ethic that tells us to sacrifice ourselves to other people because it is the highest virtue. The premise of this ethic is that other people matter more than the individual, and that the individual has no right to his own life, property and possessions - such things are always secondary to the needs of others. You think there cannot be forced altruism, and if we’re talking only of individual-individual relationships then I’m not going to disagree with you (I could, but it would be petty). However, the altruist premises goes much further. Every political system is based on some ethical premise, and more often than not it’s the altruist premise. It’s the premise that allows the government to seize your property if it’s deemed to be for the greater good of others (my parents had their house vested a few years ago). It justifies the seizure of a portion of my salary before I even see it, to be distributed as the government sees fit. True, our government and country is a long way from a totalitarian state, but the difference is simply one of degree - not one of basic fundamental principle. In fact, our government is inconsistent, at least Stalin wasn’t.
The premise of rational self-interest is very different. It says that each individual has an absolute right to his own life and property to use for whatever ends he sees fit.
If you want to see the differences these premises make then think of the differences between a communist state and a libertarian one and you’ll be pretty close.
S.
11 Dave Powell // Nov 1, 2007 at 5:00 am
I think we’ll leave it there for the time being.
Did you see this article by Monbiot in the Guardian this week?
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/23/libertarians-are-the-true-social-parasites/
12 ‘The Virtue Of…’ // Feb 28, 2008 at 11:04 am
[…] 10/27/2007 - The Virtue of Rational Self-Interest (read) […]
Leave a Comment