Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism is a doctrine that it is one and one’s own duty to act for ourself. It is a normative theory about how humans should behave. Ethical egoism supports selfishness; however it does not mean that we should not help others. In fact, if our interest contradicts with others and by helping others we will obtain a long term advantage then ethical egoism states that we should do so. In Introduction to philosophy, Louis (2004) wrote, “It may very well be that in many instance your interest coincides with the interest of others, so that in helping yourself will be aiding others indirectly. Ethical Egoism does not forbid such actions.” Ethical Egoism endorses we should always and only act base on our own interest for the long run. Whether it will benefit other parties is not important, but most importantly we protect our own interest. Many parties refute that Ethical Egoism cannot be tolerated as it promotes one to be selfish, without the slight consideration for the welfare of others. Supporters of Ethical Egoism put forward three main points in favor of this doctrine.

One, we are familiar with our own needs and suited well to pursue what we need. The need of one may not be the need of the other. We are not build to pursue and provide the need of others. If we insist, we might be doing more harm than good.
Two, looking our for others is not an act welcome by all. People may feel we are intruding their privacy and demand that we mind our own business.
Three, by carrying out “charity” on someone, we are exclaiming that they are unable to fend for themselves robbing them of their self-dignity and respect. Furthermore, providing aid may cause recipients to be dependent and over-reliant.

The arguments are however subjected to many weak points, over turning the odds. Yes, we are not well-suited to other peoples needs, but we are clear of the simple basic needs of every human, example: food, shelter, and medical needs. These are the basic needs we could provide to the poor and needy. We could provide them food and teach them how to plant and cultivate their own. However if they are lazy and refuse to do so, we cannot continue to help them. There are people in the Third World countries struggling to acquire clean and uncontaminated water. It would be the least we could do to provide them the technology to drill a well and build piping frameworks to villages far from water sources. Occasionally, they are some determined individuals who are highly-motivated to work their own salvation. It is true that we would be intruding their privacy by helping them. However, doing charity does not mean that we force people in such cases to accept our generosity. In fact, people with high self-determination need no help. The determination in their hearts alone is a wealth and never ending generating force to success. It would be wise to move on to other individuals who would profit more from our charity.

James, the author of The elements of Moral Philosophy, suggest three approach if one believes in this doctrine.
(a) We ought to do whatever will promote the best interest of everyone alike.
(b) The interest of everyone will best be promoted if each of us adopts the policy of pursuing our own interest exclusively.
(c) Therefore, each of us should adopt the policy of pursuing our own interest exclusively.

James(2004), believe that if we accept this approach then it will seem that we are not ethical egoist at all, even thou we may still end up acting like an egoist. However it is the ultimate principle that we are doing so because it is what we think is best for everyone and we are not doing what we think is best for ourself.

A different reasoning would be obtained by using another approach. Ethical egoism can be viewed as a revisionist moral philosophy, and be approached by common sense morality. Viewing it less radically, let us assume that in order for others to be obligated to us we have to be obligated to them. Take killing or any form of harm to others for example, if we harm others it contributes a higher possibility for the victim to do the same onto us. Therefore, it would be to our own interest to not harm others for it would not give others a reason to harm us. Similarly, if we make promises to others we should keep them, for by doing our duty to others, others will be oblige to do their duty of keeping promises to us the same. Thomas Hobbes, suggest that this view leads nothing less to the Golden Rule: “we should not do unto others if we do not want others to do unto us” vice versa, “we should do unto others if we want others to do unto us the same”. Regretfully, this particular reasoning cannot validate and conclude Ethical Egoism as an acceptable theory, for it is only applicable in these confined cases.

Kurt Baier, in his book The Moral Point of View (1958), argues that Ethical Egoism cannot be right for it cannot provide solutions for cases where conflict of interest occurs. Baier argues with his example:

Let K and L be candidates running for presidency, and it would only
be to either ones interest to be elected. It would then be in the interest
of K if L would be elected. It would be also in the interest of L if K
would be elected. If K would resort to liquidating L to protect his interest,
and L knowing that K is attempting to liquidate him would protect his interest
too by foiling K’s plan. It would be wrong for both K and L to not do their
duty by stopping each other.

It is ridiculous to apply the conception of Ethical Egoism in this case, for an adequate morality must provide solutions to cases where conflict of interest happens. However, if we heed the Ethical egoism doctrine it would be a race to eradicate either party, and it would be in other words a race of surviving the run for presidency.

Another example that discards Ethical Egoism is not acceptable as suggested by Baier :

If L prevents K from liquidating him, his act is both wrong and not wrong,
Wrong, because he is preventing K from doing his duty. Right, because he
is acting in terms of defending his own interest and duty.

So is it right or wrong? Is Ethical egoism acceptable or unacceptable? It cannot be acceptable if it is self-contradictory, for no theory can be self-contradictory. It would not be logical if an act would be both wrong and right at the same time, for it will cause us to be unable to decide a right decision.
The final argument refuting the Ethical Egoism doctrine is its arbitrary nature. To understand its relation, let’s take racism as an example. Racism is an arbitrary morality value. It involves dividing people into two groups according to race; base on humans’ interest in one race more than other race. The obvious result would be a better treatment for one race and the discrimination of the other. Anti-Semitism works the same way, and so do nationalism. On what circumstances should we treat others differently? The general principle is namely: We can justify treating people differently only if we can show that there is factual difference between them that is relevant to justifying the difference in treatment. In the past, white people would say that black people are stupid, lack in ambition, and lowly educated. So they resort to treating them differently and discriminate against them. But is there really significance difference between black people and the white people? Excluding the skin color, culture, and features, there are really no difference between black people and white people. We cannot justify a different treatment on the base that they are lowly educated, stupid or low in ambition. If we treat them differently because so, we are taking advantage of their weakness; we are taking advantage of them because they are not educated; we are taking advantage of them because of their inability to fight back. We can only treat a person differently if they are spastic. Even so we should treat them with kindness by helping them in their daily lives. Leading a blind man across the road is one of the examples that we can treat people differently, for if we treat him as a normal person the blind man will find it very difficult to cross the road by himself. Ethical Egoism is a moral theory of the same kind. It divides people into two groups, oneself in a group, and others in the other. According to the doctrine, we should act in our own interest. Other parties’ interest comes in the second position and only in cases where we too obtain interest for the long run by acting in their interest. But are we different than the others? Are we different from the others till it is justified and only fair for us to treat them differently? Are we more important in the world? Are we so important till the extent where our interest should be the only priority? Do we have super-human abilities that cause us to be special and our interest subjected to be first? Are other humans’ lower- intelligence species like animals compare to ourself so their interest is not important? Unable to separate the difference and distinction between us and others, we cannot treat others differently. Therefore Ethical Egoism is an unacceptable moral theory for it is an arbitrary doctrine that favors oneself to other humankind.