EGOISM

John Douglas Bishop

Psychological Egoism
Psychological egoism (sometimes called descriptive
egoism) claims that every individual does, as a matter
of fact, always pursue his or her own interests. In
other words, it claims that people never act altruistically
for the good of others or for an ideal. Since psychological
egoism claims to state what is the case, it
is a descriptive theory and so is very different from
a normative theory such as ethical egoism, which
purports to say how people ought to act.
Psychological egoism seems to rest on either
confusions or false claims. If self-interest is interpreted
in a narrow or selfish sense, then psychological
egoism is simply false. There are clearly many generous
people who often sacrifice their own interests,
including their money and time, to help others.
Indeed, most of us are generous on some occasions.
Some defenders of psychological egoism admit this
fact but claim that it is irrelevant because even a person
who is generous is acting on his or her own desire
to be generous and, hence, is really being self-interested.
The problem with this defense of psychological
egoism is that it reduces psychological egoism to a
logical necessity; the motive for any action must be
that agents motivethis is logically necessary, for
obviously it cannot be someone elses motive. Other
psychological egoists argue that what appear to be
generous motives are always a front for some hidden
self-interested motive. For example, Mother Teresa
was really, they claim, motivated by a desire for fame
or respect or a desire to get into heaven. The problem
with this form of psychological egoism is that there is
no reason to believe it is true. It is mere speculation
and must always remain so since we can never have
access to a persons genuine motives. It may be
believed mostly by people who are generalizing from
their own ungenerous character.
A final form of psychological egoism rests on a
confusion regarding the nature of desires and motives.
Some psychological egoists argue that whatever selfish
or generous desire motivates us, what we really
want is the pleasure of satisfying our desire; thus, all
human motivation is really self-interested. This misunderstanding
was laid to rest in the 18th century by
Bishop Joseph Butler and others, who pointed out that
a person needs to have generous desires in the first
place in order to get any pleasure from satisfying
them. They also pointed out that supposing we have a
second-order desire to fulfill our desires is redundant
and involves an infinite regression.
Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is very different from psychological
egoism. Ethical egoism is a normative ethical theory
that claims that every individual ought to always pursue
his or her own self-interest and only his or her
own interests. An ethical egoist believes that people
should never altruistically pursue the good of others
and that people should never make personal sacrifices
for an ideal. Ethical egoism is not limited to a persons
economic interests but applies equally to all types of
interests a person may have, such as family interests,
love interests, religious interests, and so on.
Advocates of ethical egoism often view it as a
fundamental moral principle that cannot be justified
using any more basic moral assumptions. However,
there have been some attempts to make ethical egoism
morally plausible, the best-known being Ayn Rands
claim that putting the interests of other people before
ones own is demeaning and humiliating and does not
show proper respect for oneself. According to Rand, if
people have a morally proper concern for themselves,
they will always consider themselves first.
Several aspects of ethical egoism require clarification.
First, it needs to be emphasized that a belief in
ethical egoism does not prevent a person from being
cooperative with others. If the egoist benefits from
cooperation, then he or she is required by his or her
moral belief in egoism to cooperate. This is true not
just of cooperating directly with other people but also
of cooperating with social rules, norms, and ethical
customs; if following the rules or norms will pay off
for the egoist, then he or she ought to follow the rules.
Perhaps an ethical egoist ought to defect in a one-shot
prisoners dilemma or be a free rider when there is no
chance of being caught, but life rarely resembles such
situations. Agood egoist is always concerned for his or
her reputation for honesty and cooperation because it
is generally in a persons interest to be accepted as a
part of cooperative endeavors. It can be argued that
even in situations when ones reputation with others is
not at stake (such as in a highway service center one
does not plan to visit again), an egoist has an interest
in preserving the habits of honesty, politeness, and
cooperation. The human ability to detect liars and
cheats is sufficiently subtle so that egoists who want to
be thought of as honest and cooperative serve their
own interests best by always cultivating the social
virtues, even when among strangers. It can be argued
that it is generally in a persons interests to have an
honest personality as well as a reputation for honesty.
An egoist will guard against the corruption of his or
her character. In fact, if virtue ethicists are right in saying
that cultivating the virtues is an essential part of
human happiness, then ethical egoism from the broadest
perspective would be compatible with virtue ethics.
Ethical egoism should not be thought to advocate
selfishness. Ethical egoists advocate that we pursue
our own interests, but they often do not claim that our
interests are narrowly selfish. Most people have genuine
interests in their family, friends, community,
nation, and religion, among other interests. They do
not just want these to thrive so that they will themselves
benefit; they have direct interests in many
aspects of society even when no personal advantage
can result. Furthermore, some egoists point out that
many people are inherently generous, which gives
them an interest in helping others, not just an interest
in mutually beneficial cooperation with others. Most
ethical egoists include satisfying social desires and
generosity as part of pursuing their self-interests.
A similar point can be made about narcissism;
excessive attention to oneself is probably suboptimal
from an egoist point of view. A thorough pursuit of
ones own interests requires that ones calculations take
into account the larger picture, including other peoples
interests and emotions, their likely behavior and
reactions, social rules, laws, politics, and so on. Nor
is it likely that an egoist will benefit from excessive
self-regard, lack of self-awareness, or obsessive ambition,
even though such characteristics are often loosely
associated with egoism.
Numerous objections can be raised against ethical
egoism. These include claims that as a fundamental
moral principle, ethical egoism is plainly wrong; that
people have a purpose in life other than just pursuing
their own goals; that we have moral obligations to
other people and not just to ourselves; that there are
universal moral principles that prohibit some egoistical
actions; that altruism is a moral duty that extends
beyond feelings of generosity; and that ethical egoism
misuses moral language and violates our most basic
moral intuitions.
These are powerful objections to egoism in its pure
form, but rejecting egoism altogether violates the common
moral intuition that pursuing ones own interests
is often morally permissible or even required. A compromise
position might be to accept what can be called
constrained ethical egoism. It is important to note that
constrained ethical egoism as discussed here is not a
form of ethical egoism as that phrase is usually used; it
uses the word egoism in its ordinary meaning and
appeals to many peoples intuitions about egoism and
the ethical limits of egoism. It is, however, some sort
of normative egoism insofar as it maintains that people
ought to pursue their own interests, albeit within constraints,
and not just that it is permissible to do so.
Possible constraints on egoism are either some religious
or deontological moral principles or the more
simple constraint of not doing serious harm.
A deontological moral theory labels certain types
of actions as unethical regardless of their consequences.
The moral principles of many religions are
of this type. Immanuel Kants categorical imperative
is the most sophisticated philosophical deontological
theory we have. Constraining ethical egoism by the
categorical imperative would give this principle:
Everyone ought to pursue his or her own self-interest
by any action that does not violate the categorical
imperative. Since the categorical imperative is clear
(or so Kant claims) on what actions are unethical but
vague about the purpose of human actions, this form
of constrained ethical egoism is possible.
A simpler form of constrained ethical egoism
may be this principle: Everyone ought to pursue his
or her own self-interest by any action that does not
cause serious harm to anyone. What constitutes serious
harm may be vague, but at a minimum it would
include death, physical harm, or psychological
trauma. The seriousness of financial harm is more
difficult to determine. Although not without problems,
constrained ethical egoism seems closer to our normal
moral intuitions than ethical egoism in a purer form.
How common is it for people to seriously commit
to ethical egoism in either its pure or its constrained
forms? Are there many people who believe that one
ought always to pursue only ones own interests, or
even that one ought always to pursue only ones own
interests within certain ethical constraints? It is difficult
to say because it is probable that admitting that
one is an ethical egoist, or trying to get others to be
ethical egoists, is seldom in ones own interests. It is
generally a much better idea to get other people to be
mindful of the needs of others, including your needs.
If this is true, then truly serious ethical egoists would
never admit that they are ethical egoists, nor would
they ever advocate ethical egoism; it would never be
in their interests to do so.
Egoism in Business
Using egoism in the general sense of the pursuit of a
persons own self-interest, many people believe that in
a capitalist economy, business is founded on egoism
and runs on egoism. Egoism is thought to be one of the
primary motives for workers to take jobs and pursue
careers, for management to run corporations, and
for entrepreneurs to build new businesses. Egoism is
viewed as the key incentive for people to save, invest,
take risks, and innovate. I will refer to this form of egoism
as business egoism to distinguish it from ethical
egoism and psychological egoism. By business egoism,
I mean the belief that it is morally acceptable, or
even required, for every individual to pursue his or her
own economic interests when engaged in business.
Business egoism is not inherently unethical. Its
ethical permissibility can be justified in two ways.
The rights justification is based on a persons right to
own private property, freely exchange property and
services, and freely enter into consensual contracts.
Since all people have (or should have) these rights,
they have the moral right to pursue their own interests
by exercising them. Business egoism can also be justified
on utilitarian grounds by using the invisible
hand argument. This claims that if everyone pursues
his or her own interests, it will lead to a thriving and
dynamic economy from which everyone can benefit.
The moral justifications of business egoism do
not justify unlimited egoism. First, business egoism
includes only economic activities; it does not include
other areas of life such as politics, family, or community.
Business egoism cannot even be extended to
other occupations. Both the rights and the utilitarian
justifications of business egoism suggest that in many
cases a corporate employees egoistical pursuit of his
own career goals is limited only by his employment
contract and not by other obligations to his employer;
on the other hand, dedicated physicians, teachers, and
professors have fiduciary obligations to their patients,
students, and the truth that transcend and may sometimes
limit their own egoistical career interests.
Second, business egoism has three significant
constraints on it. Neither the property rights nor the
utilitarian justifications of business egoism can justify
violations of law and ethics. Furthermore, both justifications
assume a morality of respect for the free
market, including respect for private property and
honest contracts. These three constraints are an essential
part of business egoism because without them,
neither the rights nor the invisible hand justifications
of business egoism will work.
These reflections raise the issue of the status of
business egoism as a moral theory. Clearly, it is not a
form of pure ethical egoism because it requires significant
constraints on egoism. It is a form of constrained
ethical egoism only insofar as it recommends that
people ought to pursue their own interests in business.
However, many peoples moral intuition is even
weaker in that they would only want to claim that it is
permissible, not obligatory, to pursue ones own interests
in business. Constrained business egoism as most
people intuit it is not a form of ethical egoism as most
philosophers use the term.
Business egoism has many critics. Both the rights
and the utilitarian justifications for business egoism
have been criticizedthe utilitarian justification on
the grounds that business egoism does not in fact lead
to the greatest good even in a free market and the
rights justification on the grounds that property rights
are less basic and more limited than the argument
requires. Other criticisms include the claim that business
egoism corrupts ones character and tends to
become obsessive; that business egoists tend to ignore
the moral constraints on egoism even though these are
an essential part of the justification of business egoism;
and finally, that business egoism trivializes life
into the pursuit of economic gain.
Business egoism is often discussed in the context
of Milton Friedmans famous article defending the
obligations of corporate managers to try to maximize
the profits of their corporations. Many people interpret
Friedman as defending business egoism when he
advocates a stockholder theory of corporations, but
there are problems in viewing stockholder theory as a
form of egoism. First, viewing corporations as egoists
when they try to maximize profits raises the question
of whether corporations are moral agents that have
the kind of interests that egoism requires. Second,
Friedman is recommending to senior corporate executives
a morality very different from egoism: Executives
should, according to Friedman, pursue the
interests of the corporations owners, not their own interests.
Executives should not be egoists because they
have fiduciary obligations to act in the interests of other
people. Viewing Friedmans theory as a form of
egoism may come from extending the legal fiction
that corporations are persons into ethical discussion,
thus raising the possibility of a corporation being an
egoist. This extension needs more justification than it
has yet been given.
Business Egoism and Ethical Egoism
Business egoism is very different from normative
ethical egoism both because it applies only to a persons
economic activities and because it needs to be
constrained by law, ethics, and respect for private
property and honest contracts. However, if one
accepts ethical egoism, business egoism would seem
to follow from it: If people believe that they should
always pursue their own interests, then they would
do so in business as well as in other areas of their
life. If ethical egoism is used in this way to justify
business egoism, business egoism changes slightly.
Since under ethical egoism one is committed to a
general pursuit of ones own self-interest in all areas
of life, ones business interests would have to be balanced
with ones other interests. Excessive concentration
on ones business interests harms a person in
ways that violate a more general egoism. This is the
point that Dickens is making with Ebenezer Scrooge
in A Christmas Carol. Scrooge greatly prospered in
business but at the expense of everything else in life.
He lost his fiance, his family, his friends, and the
pleasures of society and generosity. Before he saw
the ghosts, Scrooge was an excellent businessman
and a great business egoist but a very poor ethical
egoist.
Conclusion
Of the various kinds of egoism, psychological egoism,
which claims that all people as a matter of fact will
always pursue their own interests, can be dismissed
as either confused or false. This leaves the normative
question of whether people ought to pursue their own
interests and in what contexts they should do so.
Business egoists will pursue their own interests in
business without necessarily accepting egoism in
other areas of their lives. They can morally justify this
on either rights or utilitarian grounds. Many people
believe that egoism lies behind the immense productivity
of capitalist economies, though the sustainability
of that productivity in the medium and long terms
has been questioned. Business egoism, whether justified
by rights or utilitarian arguments, necessarily has
three constraints on the pursuit of self-interest: People
should obey the law, follow ethical principles, and
respect private property and honest contracts.
A business egoist is not necessarily an ethical egoist
because ethical egoists pursue their self-interest in
all aspects of their lives, not just business. An ethical
egoist would likely be a business egoist insofar as he
or she is involved in business, but the nature of business
egoism would change if a person were an egoist
in all areas of his or her life. Ethical egoists would
have to balance their business interests with other
interests, including family, friends, community, religion,
and so on. They would never sacrifice their
other interests entirely to mere economic gain. They
do not necessarily recognize constraints on the pursuit
of their self-interest, but if business egoism is to be
compatible with most peoples moral intuitions, then
a business egoist is likely to recognize the constraints
of religion, morality, or at least the principle of not
doing serious harm to others.
Neither business egoism nor ethical egoism should
be confused with selfishness, narcissism, excessive
self-regard, or even obsessive ambition. Egoists pursue
their own interests, but this does not mean that
they do not have interests that involve the promotion
of the good of other people. Egoists may cooperate
with others, and with laws and social norms, as a
means to their own ends. But egoists may also include
the interests of others as a constitutive part of their
self-interest. If an egoist loves his or her family, for
example, then their interests constitute a part of his or
her interests.