In social philosophy, there is
probably no term more misunderstood than ‘egoism’.
In the language of formal economic
theory, it can be said that every action is egoistic, if by egoistic we mean
any action chosen by the individual because they expect that the benefits to
themselves will outweigh the costs to themselves (which is the case for every
action performed, by definition). Eating a hamburger or donating to charity, if
performed by an actor, demonstrates that the actor expects to value the
satisfaction derived from eating a hamburger or expects to value the
satisfaction derived from donating to charity more than any other course of
action, assuming resource and time requirements are equal, that they could have
performed at the time.
If egoism is to have a substantive
meaning in philosophy though, a discipline more concerned with evaluating the
ends actors choose than economics, which is solely concerned with evaluating
means and what ends they lead to, it must be defined more narrowly. The popular
definition of an egoistic act is an act that is performed by an actor who
doesn’t, or doesn’t ‘sufficiently’, evaluate the effect that that action will
have on other humans when deciding whether to perform it or not. An altruistic
act, on the other hand, according to the popular definition, is an act that is
performed by an actor who does ‘sufficiently’ take into consideration the
effects, positive or negative, that that action will have on other humans when
deciding whether to perform it or not. Consuming beluga caviar by yourself
would be a perfect example of an egoistic act, donating to charity concerned
with helping others and which doesn’t redound at all to your material benefit
would be a perfect example of an altruistic act.
The problem
with this definition of egoism is that it is too narrow. This is because,
ironically, someone who only performed egoistic acts would fail lamentably at
pursing their own self-interest, the advancement of which is supposed to be the
goal of egoists. This is because men do not generally live as hermits, and
their self-interest would generally not be advanced by living as hermits.
Rather, most men live in society with others, something which enormously
advances all of their self-interests. In order for this institution of society
to be preserved and to operate beneficially, there can be no question of everyone
always absolutely disregarding the effects that their actions will have on
others in that society. The result would be a disintegration of whatever
society that existed into a maelstrom of robbery, assault, murder, and chaos,
something which serves no one’s self-interest.
In order for
people to advance their self-interests effectively, ‘societal’ and ‘indirect’
considerations must be considered, alongside the purely ‘selfish’ and ‘direct’
considerations contained in the popular definition of egoism, when evaluating
the desirability of a course of action. I suggest five broad criteria for
egoists living in society to consider when evaluating any course of action:
Selfish Considerations:
1. Direct effects on the actor, considered in isolation from
‘societal’ factors. Can be in the form of an immediate benefit (consumption) or
a benefit to be reaped later (investment):
To isolate
this consideration, imagine for the moment that you are a hermit and that as
long as you meet the cost, the benefit will just materialize without any social
processes being involved. For a choice like deciding whether to eat a bowl of
ice cream or not, these conditions are approximately true in reality, as the
societal effects of your decision are fairly negligible. The main
considerations are: how much will you enjoy the taste? How much is its money
cost? How hungry are you? What will the long-term health effects be? How will
you feel immediately after consuming the ice cream? Etc…
Societal Considerations
2. Sympathy Effects:
As humans
live together in society, especially in families or communities, they often
become emotionally attached to one another and realize that others share many
common, ‘human’ traits with them. The result is the development of feelings of
sympathy between humans, defined as an emotional, empathetic link between two
or more humans, a link that can vary widely in intensity. When bonds of
sympathy are established between two people, if one perceives that the other is
hurt, some of that hurt will be transferred onto the perceiver, while if one
perceives that the other is happy, some of that happiness will be transferred
onto the perceiver. The stronger the sympathetic bond, the more hurt or
happiness is transferred. If an egoist who has developed bonds of sympathy with
another wants to advance his self-interest effectively, he cannot ignore the
effects that his actions will have on others. If he performs an action that
hurts someone he cares about, part of that hurt will be transferred back to him
through the bond of sympathy. This must be considered by any rational egoist
who has the advancement of his self-interest in mind. Hurting yourself through
hurting those you care about is not a good way of advancing your self-interest.
3. Fear of Retaliation or Hope for Recompense Effects:
One of the
first things that people living in societies together learn is that other
humans are egos interested in their own well-being just as they are, and this
fact must be taken into consideration when evaluating courses of action.
Specifically, if an actor gratuitously hurts another person, he should take
into account the possibility that the hurt person will retaliate and hurt the
actor in return. On the other hand, if an actor gratuitously helps another
person, he should take into account the possibility that the helped person will
reciprocate the benefit and help the actor in return. Most people seem to have
a natural, and societally beneficial, tendency to reciprocate both harms and
benefits given by others. In many societies the retaliation/deterrent part is
institutionalized and formalized by governments, acting through law enforcement
agencies. These facts should not be ignored by rational egoists seeking to make
decisions that will advance their self-interests.
4. Higher Probability that that Course of Action will Become
a General Rule of Societal Action:
Every time
one member of society engages in an individually beneficial action that has
bearings on the rules governing the social order, it becomes more probable that
this kind of behavior will become a more general behavior amongst members of
society. This is so due to the addition of the actor to the number of citizens
engaging in that kind of action, and due to the possibility of imitation by
other citizens who see that this kind of action can be beneficial to
individuals. For example, if the actor is deciding whether or not to mug a man
in the street and steal his wallet, he should consider what would happen if
more and more people in society started doing that. Security of person and
property would become less secure, which would result in a less productive,
less prosperous, less peaceful, and more fearful society for everyone. The
actor was looking to benefit himself materially with his action, but his
material interests and other interests would be hurt if his action became
generalized and performed by more and more people in society. Now, this effect
is of course only a probabilistic effect (there is no guarantee that others
will imitate the action), and should be discounted by the actor accordingly.
Nevertheless, the reality of the effect remains, as demonstrated by phenomena
such as the impoverishment caused by widespread interest group politicking, and
must be taken into account by any rational egoist intent on advancing his
self-interest.
5. Intellectual
Consistency/Hypocrisy Effects:
I suspect
that many people’s minds, like mine, crave consistency in thought. My mind
would be distressed if, for example, my having engaged in a bodily assault of
another person forced it to rationalize a position like: ‘bodily assault is
good when I am doing the assaulting, but bad when other people are doing the
assaulting, both because of the negative societal effects and because I might
be the one assaulted.’ Moreover, if I tried to convince people that bodily
assault was bad and that they shouldn’t do it, they would probably discount my
opinion because of its obvious hypocrisy. How can someone who has assaulted
someone preach that assault is bad and that you shouldn’t do it? Who would
listen to the opinions of such a person on any social topic? For the sake of
your inner peace of mind and to maintain your intellectual reputation, this
effect must be considered before engaging in an action which, if speaking
generally and universally, you would rationally condemn, such as bodily
assault.
To make this
discussion more concrete and practical, I will now use my five criteria for
rational egoistic decision-making to explain why, entirely on egoistic grounds,
if I had the opportunity, I would not break into someone’s house and steal
their precious jewellery:
1. Possessing precious jewellery, at the direct cost only of
walking to the person’s house, breaking a window, finding the jewellery, and
carrying it home, is certainly directly beneficial in a societally-isolated,
selfish sense. I could exchange the jewellery for a lot of money and use it to
invest in a better future for myself.
2. Even though I don’t know the owners directly, I would feel
sympathetic pain from the proposed action. I would imagine what it would be
like if I was in their shoes, and just lost something both emotionally and
monetarily precious to me, and the sense of violation and anger that they would
feel. The pain would certainly be lessened because in this case, I don’t know
the owners personally, but it would still exist and be a significant factor in
my decision-making, for I know that they are human and would just assume that
they are average, relatively nice people who don’t deserve to be gratuitously
harmed.
3. Being a cautious person and lover of security, I would
greatly fear societal or police retaliation for my proposed action. I would
definitely not like to live in fear of being hauled away to jail at any moment.
4. As I mentioned already, if robbery became general, society
would become a nastier and less productive arrangement. I would not like that
one bit, and consequently, I would not like to contribute to making that
eventuality more likely, nor if it occurred would I like knowing that I was
part of the problem, not the solution.
5. My social ideas are generally libertarian and robbery is
anathema to libertarianism. My inner peace of mind would be seriously disturbed
if my actions contradicted my social ideas, and no one would take me seriously
if they knew that I was a robber who preached libertarianism. Not just with
regards to social policy, but probably with regards to other intellectual
issues as well, my opinions would be discounted as tainted with hypocrisy. All
this would be seriously harmful to me.
Conclusion: I must
conclude that despite the tempting immediate material advantages, the disadvantages,
in the form of societal considerations, significantly outweigh them, and I
would not decide in favour of stealing the jewellery, unless perhaps I was
starving to death or if the owners were known thieves or murderers themselves.
Now, some
may object that by including societal considerations in my analysis, by
definition the analysis is no longer done from an egoistic perspective. This is
why we must come to a better understanding of the definition of egoism. When
egoist philosophers such as Max Stirner and James L. Walker use the term, they
do not so much contrast egoism with altruism as is popularly done, but with
idealism. In their view, an egoist is someone who acts based on values that
flow naturally/spontaneously from their own bodies and minds. An idealist, on
the other hand, is someone who acts based on the alleged absolute value of
fixed ideals. These ideals are somewhat alien to the current individual,
established either by an indoctrinator or as a piece of ossified past thought
of the individual that he does not allow his mind to challenge rationally when
circumstances have changed. Popular examples of such ideals include things like
God, Universal Love, Equality, Family, Accumulation, Chastity, Law, and
Property. These ideals become idols to which the individual is expected to, and
often expects himself to, sacrifice his self-interest to. Rather than
undertaking rational, egoistic calculations of actions as I did above with the
jewellery stealing example, they adopt the sometimes useful, but sometimes
harmful, shortcut of just inquiring whether an action fits in with one of their
fixed ideals or not, and enthusiastically pursuing the action if it does, and
impetuously rejecting it if it does not.
To make the
opposition between egoism and idealism clearer, I will offer some examples of
how the conduct of an idealist might differ from that of an egoist:
1. The religious idealist might otherwise want to have sex
before marriage, but if he thinks that his God does not approve of such
actions, he might prevent himself from doing it. The rational egoist does what
he calculates will be best for him, in the short and long-run, and as long as
he takes proper precautionary measures against unwanted impregnations or STDs,
he will probably choose to have sex before marriage when the right
circumstances align, regardless of what people say a religious deity might
think of his actions.
2. The rational egoist, when it comes to love and generous
actions springing from that feeling, will probably save his love for those he
is close to, admires, and/or cares about. The universal love idealist, on the
other hand, thinking it his duty to adhere to the ideal of Universal Love, will
push himself to try to love everyone equally, lavishing indiscriminate love on
the peasant in Thailand he’s never met and on his own close friends and family
alike. The idealist might think that his philanthropy must cover the whole
world, and will spread it out accordingly, while the egoists will save his
philanthropy for those he truly, spontaneously, and naturally cares about.
3. The egalitarian idealist will want to make all members of
his society equal in socio-economic terms, in the name of his ideal of
Equality. He will recommend harmful policies that will contribute to
undermining the productivity of the society in which he lives in pursuit of
this ideal. The rational egoist, on the other hand, if he is an employer for
example, might choose to give his lowest paid workers a raise above the general
market value of their services in order to make his employee’s salaries more
equal, perhaps to increase their morale and perhaps out of sympathy. He will
not go much further than something like this though, because he does not seek
to sacrifice himself for the sake of the unattainable and destructive ideal of
Equality.
4. The familial idealist will submit to many hardships in the
name of Family, even if his particular family happens to be grasping and
abusive. The rational egoist will seek to make his family happy, both out of
sympathy for those close to him and, if family members had been good to him, to
reciprocate those benefits received. If the family is rotten though, causing
the egoist to feel little sympathy or need to reciprocate non-existent benefits
dispensed, and/or if the family demands an unreasonable amount of sacrifice
from the egoist, he will not unreasonably hurt himself as a sacrifice in the
name of the idol of Family.
5. The miserly idealist is one who forgets that the purpose
of amassing wealth is to consume or to allow those you love to consume, and
instead just keeps amassing wealth in the name of the ideal of Accumulation.
The rational egoist understands the value of wealth, and will make balanced
and situation-specific decisions amongst devoting his wealth to consumption,
investment (setting the stage for future consumption), or cash-holding to meet
exigencies.
6. The legalist idealist is one who thinks that everything
that the government proclaims to be Law, they must unquestioningly obey. For
example, let us assume that the actor is a small-business owner who could use
some extra labor help with his business. A young man just out of high school
offers to work for him. While the extra help would be useful, the business
owner does not think that it would be worth $10.25 an hour (Ontario’s current
minimum wage). The young man, however, really wants the job and is willing to
work for $7 an hour. If the business owner is a legalist idealist, he will
refuse and not hire the young man. After all, paying below the minimum wage is
against ‘The Law’. If the business owner is a rational egoist, and the chances
of their being found out by the authorities is small, he will probably gladly
conspire with the young man so that he can work for $7 an hour. Both parties to
the transaction benefit, and the main precedent that is set by the action is
the mostly benign one of ignoring absurd laws of the government.
7. The
propertarian idealist is one who thinks that Private Property is sacred, and
that to violate someone’s private property rights is always a grave sin. In all
cases in which the issue comes up, the propertarian idealist will always choose
to preserve the sanctity of Private Property, regardless of circumstances. Most
knowledgeable egoists will maintain that respecting private property is good as
a general rule, due to the many benefits to all that the institution provides.
However, this will not prevent them from making occasional exceptions to that
rule, in cases where the benefits seem to clearly outweigh the costs and where
the exception is not likely to lead to a slippery slope, resulting in more and
more violations of private property. For example, a rational egoist might
support the principle that if a major, beneficial infrastructure project is
being built but a stubborn hold-out is refusing to sell his small, but
necessary, parcel of land at any reasonable price, the hold-out may be forced
to sell at something like 1.5 times the current market value for similar
parcels of land. The propertarian idealist, on the other hand, would never
accept this exception to his ideal, and would prefer that the infrastructure
project be built around the parcel, even if it means ludicrously costly
detours.
Thus, we
have shown that if people became rational egoists, the disintegration of
society would not result, as societal considerations must be considered
alongside selfish considerations if the egoist is to pursue his self-interest
at all effectively. We have also argued that consequently, the opposite of
egoism is not altruism, as it is popularly supposed, but idealism. Idealism, if
the ideal is a generally good one such as Family or Property, can sometimes
serve just as an intellectual shortcut for those not wanting to constantly
engage in egoistic calculations of courses of action. Even for good ideals
though, and especially for bad, ludicrous, or questionable ones, this shortcut
can sometimes lead to a lot of irrational decisions. Keeping the proper,
egoistic foundations of decision-making in mind could help people to avoid more
of these irrational decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment