Ethical egoism: philosophical foundations and critique

Ethics and Morality

In basic terms, ethical egoism can be regarded as an ethical position (normative) in which case an agent ought to undertake a course of action that maximizes his or her own self-interest. Thus in this case, the primary duty of the agent is to promote his or her own interests. In this text, I concern myself with ethical egoism. In so doing, I develop several arguments in favor of the theory. Further, I highlight several objections that could possibly be used to counter my arguments.

Ethical Egoism: Supporting Arguments

In the opinion of Arrington (1998), "ethical egoism is the claim that every person ought to act so as to promote her own self-interest." Several arguments can be used in support of ethical egoism. To begin with, it is important to note that each individual is more often than not perfectly aware of his or her needs and wants. It is such knowledge that places an individual in a better position to pursue and solve his or her needs more efficiently. On the other hand, we cannot claim to know or perfectly understand the needs of others. In that regard, we may not be uniquely placed to pursue or solve such needs. Thus in such a case, if we set out to solve the needs of others i.e. By being "our brother's keeper," chances of doing a poor job would be rather high. In such a case, it is only reasonable that we seek to solve our own problems which we are perfectly aware of. Further, it can also be argued that meddling in other people's affairs as we seek to help them out is an unnecessary intrusion into their privacy. Apart from intruding into their privacy, seeking to maximize the interests of others by making them objects of our concern is in a way degrading to the self-respect as well as dignity of the recipients of such concern. In addition, such concern also interferes with the independence of the recipients by making them reliant on others. Thus in the final analysis, seeking to act in the best interests of others other than our own is self-defeating.

Next, Ayn Rand according to Shafer-Landau (2007) notes that "ethical egoism is the only ethical philosophy that respects the integrity of the individual human life." In this case, it should be noted from the onset that ethical egoism is in most cases contrasted from ethical altruism. Ethical altruism in itself is the view that there exists an obligation for individuals to benefit, serve or help others. In Rand's opinion, "if a man accepts the ethics of altruism, his first concern is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it" (Shafer-Landau, 2007). An individual's life is largely made up of various earned goods and projects undertaken. It is important to note that offering one's life as sacrifice in this case means abandoning such goods and projects. Similarly, asking an individual not to maximize his or her self-interest is the same as asking such an individual to give up or abandon his goods and projects. In basic terms, an individual has a single life. Hence based on the moral worth of such an individual and given the supreme importance of his or her life, an individual ought to maximize his or her self-interest and not that of others.

Lastly, it can be noted that ethical egoism in the opinion of Shafer-Landau (2007) "accepts common-sense morality and offers a surprising account of its basis." As human beings, we are expected to observe and live in accordance with certain rules. For instance, we are not expected to hurt other people, lie or break our promises. In this case, ethical egoism attempts to explain some of these obligations. For instance, should we habitually harm others; then, it is highly likely that those we harm will harm us back in return for the grief we cause them. Similarly, if we injure others seriously, we could be committed to jail. Hence it would be in our best interests not to harm other people. Further, if we habitually lie to others, it will be impossible for them to trust us. In such a case, telling the truth would be in our best interests. Yet another example that can be cited in this case regards entering into arrangements that are mutually beneficial and ensuring that we keep our promises. In this case, it can be noted that to benefit, individuals sometimes have to rely on others. It is impossible to benefit from others if the individuals we seek to benefit from fail to keep their promises. However, we cannot expect others to keep their promises if we on our part do not keep ours. In the final analysis and from the self-interest point-of-view, the relevance of keeping promises cannot be overstated. Hence from this perspective, we should at all times do unto others what we would ordinarily expect them to do unto us.

Dissenting Views/Arguments

It is important to note that though the above arguments are relatively convincing when it comes to presenting ethical egoism as a well-founded morality theory, there exists some objections regarding the same. To begin with, ethical egoism seems to advocate for a clear distinction between two groups of people, that is, the rest of the populace and ourselves. In so doing, the theory prescribes the preferential treatment of the second group i.e. ourselves as opposed to the first group i.e. The rest of the populace. However, the question that ought to be asked in this case is; what makes the second category of individuals more important than the first category? Why should the second category be given preferential treatment? When looked at from a critical point-of-view, these questions in one way or the other present ethical egoism as a doctrine that is rather arbitrary. These questions can however be answered by reverting to an earlier argument I presented earlier on. According to that argument, it is an individual who in perfectly aware of his or her needs and wants. This awareness makes the needs of such an individual (and hence the individual) more important than those of others which he or she is only imperfectly aware of.