In this blog post, we examine the core argument of psychological egoism surrounding the motivation for human behavior. We also explore the basis and limitations of why this theory interprets all altruistic behavior as the pursuit of self-interest.
We praise acts of helping others or even sacrificing one’s life as altruistic. However, according to psychological egoism, altruistic acts do not exist. This is because it implies that all human actions are ultimately for one’s own benefit.
There are two main arguments supporting psychological egoism. The first argument asserts that whether we act selfishly or altruistically, we are ultimately only doing what we most desire, so no action can truly be called altruistic. In other words, since we are merely doing what we most want to do, there is no reason such an act should be praised as ‘altruistic’. The second argument is based on the fact that people derive satisfaction from performing altruistic acts. No matter how altruistic an act may appear, the argument asserts that it ultimately serves only self-gratification.
However, these arguments for psychological egoism contain clear flaws. The first argument rests on the premise that people spontaneously do nothing other than what they desire. Yet this idea is factually incorrect. There are indeed instances where we act because we judge it necessary, even when we don’t particularly want to. The second argument is also problematic. The mere fact that someone performed an action and simultaneously derived satisfaction from it does not allow us to conclude that they did it to obtain that satisfaction. We desire various things—passing exams, marriage, helping others—but the good feeling we get upon achieving them is merely a byproduct; it is not the primary reason we acted in the first place. If someone had no interest in others at all, they wouldn’t engage in helping behavior in the first place.
If psychological egoism is a theory explaining what people actually do, ethical egoism is a normative theory prescribing what they ought to do. Psychological egoism claims humans always pursue their own interests, while ethical egoism states that regardless of whether this is actually the case, each individual ought to pursue only their own interests. In other words, ethical egoism asserts that it is our duty to act in our own interests, regardless of how we actually behave. This does not mean ethical egoism prohibits helping others. It holds that helping others need not be prohibited because it can be an effective means of promoting one’s own interests. Furthermore, ethical egoism is not a theory indifferent to the actions of others. As an ethical theory, it must propose how not just specific individuals but all people should act, thus asserting that others, like oneself, should also pursue their own interests.
However, ethical egoism raises serious problems both in practice and logically. First, ethical egoism cannot resolve conflicts of interest that arise in reality. When two people are in conflict, the victory of one is beneficial to them, but simultaneously infringes upon the other’s interests. Therefore, they have not fully fulfilled their duty until they completely subdue the other. Yet, this situation applies equally to the other party. If ethics is viewed solely from the perspective of ‘self-interest,’ no solution exists for such conflicting interests, making ethical egoism difficult to accept.
Furthermore, ethical egoism falls into a logical contradiction. Consider a situation where two individuals, A and B, are in conflict. If A prevents B from subjugating him, A’s action simultaneously becomes both a ‘wrong act’ and ‘not a wrong act’. A must prevent B from failing to fulfill their duty, and this action is not wrong precisely because it is what A must do. Yet, it is wrong because it prevents B from performing that duty.
Finally, ethical egoism fails to meet the fundamental condition of ethical theory that ethical judgments must be supported by sufficient reasons. Theories that discriminate against specific groups without any justifiable reason, like sexism, are dogmatic. Ethical egoism is also a dogmatic theory because it demands prioritizing one’s own interests over others’ without providing any special justification for valuing one’s own interests more highly. For these reasons, ethical egoism struggles to be persuasive in terms of both logical coherence and practical validity.
