An Argument Against Egoism

Kelcey
PHIL 1320 Brant
September 23, 2010
An Argument against Egoism
I shall argue that the ideas of both psychological and ethical egoism are fundamentally flawed and should not be practiced. Egoism is flawed because it ignores the fact that people have a predisposition for compassion toward others that cannot be completely expelled from their motives of action. Egoism is also flawed due to the fact that altruism cannot coexist with egoism; therefore, because there is altruism in the world, egoism cannot be practiced logically. Egoism is also flawed in that it contradicts itself within its own definition and consequently cannot hold true through the tests of real life situations.
Psychological egoism is a descriptive type of egoism that states that a person’s main goal in life is to maximize his or her own welfare, not the welfare of others (Shaver 2010). This type of egoism does permit performing acts that do not attribute to personal welfare, but it does not approve of selfless acts motivated by a sense of duty to another person. However, actions in the interest of another’s welfare may still be psychologically egotistic if the corresponding action results in one’s personal welfare (Shaver 2010). For example helping an old woman cross the street because you know she will give you money is an acceptable act according to egoism because, although it benefits the woman, it also invokes a reward attributing to the doers personal welfare. This viewpoint is based on the egotistical oxymoronic idea that altruism is really a self motivated attribute, meaning that, according to egoism, people only act unselfishly in order to make themselves appear honorable when in reality this makes their actions unrighteous, self motivated, and therefore, egotistical (Nickels 2006). Reverting back to the example about helping an old woman cross the street, someone watching from a distance may think that person is being altruistic and is a person of wonderful character, but in reality he or she is not because they receive a reward afterward. Egoists consider every act of kindness as being motivated by some type of reward whether it is physical, like receiving money, or social like appearing to be a good person in order to potentially gain social benefit down the road.
Ethical egoism is normative, meaning it proclaims how its followers should act and what they should do. Ethical egoism declares that in order for an act to have virtue it must consider only the value of the effects on the agent of action (Shaver 2010). Ethical egoists hold most important those things that will yield the biggest reward for themselves. This type of egoism, similar to psychological egoism, does consider doing things that appear to be in the interests of others if and when the reward for doing so outweighs the rewards for not doing so.
An influential philosopher in Europe during the eighteen and nineteenth century, Anthony Ashley Cooper, the third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671 to 1713), argues against psychological egoism. He argues that psychological egoism does not adequately explain the actions that people engage in a regular basis like civility, hospitality and humanity. Lord Shaftesbury proclaims that people are often called to action by characteristics such as “passion, humor, caprice, zeal, faction and a thousand other springs, which are counter to self-interest” (Shaftesbury 1999). Shaftesbury’s argument supports the notion that people have a predisposition to act out of kindness and that people are not solely motivated by self interest. People have an internal desire to do good that, despite the comparison of risk and reward, shines through in their actions in some way or another. For example, people hold doors open for others every day. This act is done out of kindness, and despite the fact that it may make the doer a few seconds late, he or she still does this for others. The ideas of psychological and ethical egoism do not hold up because there are people who act out of pure benevolence. Although these types of acts are less frequent in today’s world, they are still occurring on a regular basis.
Egoists attempt to downplay these acts of kindness by saying that they too are motivated by self interest in that the doer seeks praise or hopes to be rewarded in some way for acting virtuous. Francis Hutchinson (1694-1746), who is well known for his thoughts on moral philosophy and aesthetics, flagged this egoistic attack on acts of virtue as “dangerous because people may be discouraged from the morally worthy exercise of cultivating generous affections in themselves on the grounds that the exercise of such affections is really an exercise in dissimulation or pretence” (Broadie 2009). In other words, because of the way egoism portrays acts of benevolence, people may avoid acts of virtue against their true desire to do good for fear that others will perceive their acts of kindness as self-satisfying rather than righteous. Despite this attempt by egoism to discourage acts of kindness, there is no denying that there is still altruism in the world today. If it were not for altruism how could we explain things like anonymous donations, or policeman and firefighters who risk their lives every day to protect others, surely in the mind of an egoist the risk of dying does not outweigh any reward or recognition that may be received? People are also driven to help those who are experiencing something similar to a personal past experience of their own. “Empathy causes a non-instrumental desire to help” (Shaver 2010). For example groups like Alcoholics Anonymous form support groups for those dealing with similar problems in life. The members of groups like these are dealing with their own issues, yet they still make themselves available to others for support and expect nothing in return. The faulty argument that egoism presents against altruism only works against itself in that it proves that the idea of psychological egoism is flawed because true altruism is present in the world and therefore egoism is not a plausible way of thinking.
The idea of ethical egoism, along with psychological egoism, is not sound because it contradicts itself in its own definition. Egoism is supposed to consider only the welfare of one ’s self, but by allowing acts that benefit others it is, by self definition, arguing against itself (Nickels 2006). For example: a man who proclaims himself as an egoist saves the life of an injured baby bird while out on a date with a girl, regardless of whether or not he does this in hopes that his actions will impress the girl, he has still acted for the welfare of the bird. The definition of egoism is that one acts in the interest of only ones own welfare and not the welfare of others. For this to be a true philosophy it would not allow for any act that involves helping another person or being. Shaftesbury argues that in order for egoism to be maintained it would have to become tautologous, meaning the only way this philosophy can prove itself valid is by defining itself in circles (Shaftesbury 1999). Shaftesbury corroborates that both ethical and psychological egoism are flawed in that they cannot logically be defined. This supports that egoism should not be practiced because it is not logical.
Shaftesbury argument against egoism is based on the definition of virtue which is used in the definition of ethical egoism. He says that virtue can only exist if people are able to find motivation in things other than self interest. “A person’s virtue, according to Shaftesbury, consists not of the actions performed but of the motives they have for performing them” (Gill 2008). This can be held true in the situation with the egoist and the injured baby bird. The initial motivation that causes the man to want to help the bird was the recognition that the bird would die if he was not helped, and that he, the egoist, was present and able to help the bird. This initial motivation was inspired by the true virtue within the man. The motivation that this deed might impress his date came from his egoist mindset, possibly as egoistic justification for committing a selfless act. Regardless, this does not take away from the truly good nature of his actions. The man allows himself to help the bird because his virtue holds that it was a good right thing to do. Shaftesbury stated “if the love of doing good be not of itself a good and right inclination, I know not how there can possibly be such a thing as goodness or virtue” (Shaftesbury 1999). Again by self definition egoism disproves itself.
There can be no virtue in a world in which egoism is practiced. Some may say the one should not practice egoism because it is based off of greed and selfishness. Others say it is should not be practiced because it is has no logical definition to define or describe the guidelines of its actions. Acts of altruism and empathy also defy this mode of thinking altogether. Overall egoism does not make sense and should not, and cannot be practiced logically. In today’s world ideas such as egoism are the root of all problems of evil. People without virtue, people who have no regard for anyone but themselves are the people who lie, murder, cheat, steal, and corrupt our society. If our world is ever to be a place a peace the idea of egoism must be shut out, and things such as kindness, benevolence, and virtue spread far and wide.

Work Cited
Broadie, Alexander, "Scottish Philosophy in the 18th Century", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/scottish-18th/>.
Gill, Michael B., "Lord Shaftesbury [Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury]", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/shaftesbury/>.
Nickels, Joel. “Anti-Egoism and Collective Life: Allegories of Agency in Wyndham Lewis 's Enemy of the Stars” Criticism (Summer 2006) Volume 48, pp. 347-373
Shaftesbury, Lord, “Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times,” edited by Lawrence E. Klein, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Shaver, Robert, "Egoism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/egoism/>.

Cited: Broadie, Alexander, "Scottish Philosophy in the 18th Century", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = &lt;http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/scottish-18th/&gt;. Gill, Michael B., "Lord Shaftesbury [Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury]", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = &lt;http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/shaftesbury/&gt;. Nickels, Joel. “Anti-Egoism and Collective Life: Allegories of Agency in Wyndham Lewis 's Enemy of the Stars” Criticism (Summer 2006) Volume 48, pp. 347-373 Shaftesbury, Lord, “Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times,” edited by Lawrence E. Klein, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Shaver, Robert, "Egoism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = &lt;http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/egoism/&gt;.