Through the question, “Do all humans ultimately pursue only their own interests?”, we examine the issues and limitations of psychological and ethical egoism theories.
We call acts of helping others or even sacrificing one’s own life “altruistic” and hold them in high regard. However, according to psychological egoism, even such acts do not stem from true altruism, but are ultimately acts for one’s own benefit. According to this theory, all human actions, even if they appear to be for the benefit of others, are actually aimed at pursuing one’s own interests.
There are two main arguments in support of psychological egoism. The first argument is that whatever we do, it is ultimately the result of choosing what we want to do most. In other words, whether an action is selfish or altruistic, individuals are simply fulfilling their desires, and therefore there is no reason to praise such actions as “altruistic.”
The second argument focuses on the fact that even when people act altruistically, they derive internal satisfaction from doing so. Based on this, it is argued that even if an action appears to be a sacrifice for others, the self-satisfaction that results from it is the real purpose of the action. In other words, the sense of pride and moral satisfaction that one feels is the actual reward, which is no different from a selfish motive.
However, these arguments for psychological egoism have a decisive flaw. The first argument is based on the assumption that people always voluntarily do what they want. But this is not true. We sometimes act out of moral duty or responsibility, even when we don’t want to. For example, we do things we don’t want to do to help a friend, or we do what we believe is right even when it is inconvenient.
Such actions cannot necessarily be considered spontaneous acts based on desire. The second argument is also problematic. Just because a person feels satisfaction after performing a certain action does not mean that they performed that action solely to obtain that satisfaction. It is clear that we feel good when we are accepted into college, marry the person we love, or help someone else, but that satisfaction may be a secondary result rather than the main purpose. If someone has no interest in helping others, they would not engage in such behavior in the first place. Ultimately, what matters is why the behavior was performed, not what emotions were felt. If psychological egoism is a technical theory that attempts to explain how humans actually behave, ethical egoism is a normative theory that presents how humans should behave.
If psychological egoism says that “we always act for ourselves,” ethical egoism asserts that “we should act solely for ourselves.” In other words, this theory considers it morally right to pursue what is beneficial to oneself, regardless of how we actually behave.
However, ethical egoism does not unconditionally prohibit helping others. Rather, it considers helping others to be encouraged if such actions help maximize one’s own interests. For example, if helping others leads to a good reputation or cooperation, it is justified because it is in one’s own interest. Ethical egoism also takes an interest in the actions of others. This is because moral theory should apply to everyone, not just individuals. Therefore, this theory argues that everyone should pursue their own interests.
However, ethical egoism raises serious problems in many respects. First, from a practical point of view, ethical egoism cannot resolve conflicts of interest. For example, if two people come into conflict with each other in order to maximize their own interests, one party’s gain will inevitably be the other’s loss. In such a case, if both parties claim that it is morally right to pursue their own interests, the conflict will continue indefinitely. This is because there is no standard for determining who is right or wrong. The more each person tries to fulfill their obligations, the more they fall into the paradox of infringing on the interests of the other.
Second, ethical egoism is also contradictory from a logical point of view. For example, suppose that two people, A and B, want to subdue each other. A must prevent B from carrying out his plan in order to protect his own interests, and this is morally right for A. However, at the same time, A is preventing B from fulfilling his duty (pursuing his own interests), which is morally wrong in itself. This leads to a contradiction in which something is both right and wrong at the same time.
Third, ethical egoism does not satisfy the criteria necessary for ethical judgments to be justified, namely, the presentation of sufficient reasons. For example, if sexism justifies discrimination based solely on the differences between men and women, it is nothing more than a dogmatic attitude. Similarly, ethical egoism assumes that “my interests are more important than the interests of others” without any valid reason. However, such a claim is nothing more than a dogmatic attempt to generalize a self-centered argument without any objective basis that anyone can accept.
