Gabbi Stein
Philosophy of Ethics and Morals
Personal Ethics Paper
26 Nov. 2013
Ethical Egoism
When it all comes down to it, considering the origins of your morality may lead to
surprising conclusions. Such was the case when I read about ethical egoism, and all of the
(perhaps unappetizing) truths that come along with this theory of ethics. Despite being viewed
as a pessimistic approach to morality, ethical egoism (sometimes referred to as just ‘egoism’)
remains a relevant explanation for human behaviors. And personally, though this is difficult to
admit, I find my ambitions accurately explained thanks to this theory.
Ethical egoism essentially proposes selfishness and self-interest provide the motivation
for our actions. From a moral standpoint, this means ‘what is moral’ ought to be decided by
the individual. Furthermore, this means that ‘what is good’ is determined by how beneficial the
action is for the person doing it. Unlike other many other ethical theories, the ‘good’ done unto
others by the action is a plus, but not as important as the gains of the person performing the
act. A problem arises with this statement, however, because what then motivates a person to
perform a seemingly altruistic act? For example, what drives a man jump on a grenade to save
his fellow soldiers? It’s logical to assume a person acting in their self-interest would desire the
avoidance of death and bodily harm and try to escape. However, it can be argued that perhaps
acting in your self-interest would include jumping on the grenade if you valued the other men’s
life to a point where you would be harming yourself, for example by feeling guilty, by not saving
them. Ethical egoism requires considering the consequences of actions, and perhaps sacrificing
short term ‘good’ for a long term or more beneficial ‘good’. This principle entails cooperation
with others for mutual gains; gains which many times may not be direct or entirely fruitful. An
example could include keeping a controversial secret for someone (an act which may be
deemed ‘bad in other moral theories) in exchange for the other person’s longtime trust.
Ethical egoism can be compared to and supplemented nicely with another theory of
behavior called reciprocal altruism. Credited to Robert Trivers, this idea says that we can act
altruistically, meaning for the benefit of others, “with the expectation that the other organism
will act in a similar manner at a later time (“Reciprocal altruism”, Wikipedia).” Similarly to
ethical egoism, this has humans motivated to act for the eventual ‘good’ for themselves.
However, reciprocal altruism requires less concrete ‘good’ from the results, something an
egoist would not like. Egoism suggests considering the consequences and seeking actions to
bring about the good ones, while reciprocal altruism depends on the gratitude of others and a
general attitude of cooperation to receive any gains from their initial action. Another difference
exists in the core motivations for performing a moral action. Ethical egoists will perform the
said task with the sole intent of creating more ‘good’ for themselves, regarding the good of
others as unimportant or secondary. Reciprocal altruists, on the other hand, will perform a
deed with the intent to provide good for the other person, and expect or hope for a similarly
beneficial deed to be done to them. Finally, reciprocal altruism differs from ethical egoism in
who the ‘goodness’ is intended for. While egoists intend only to create the ‘good’ for
themselves, reciprocal altruism’s method of helping others benefit the population as a whole.
This is especially true for the biological applications of the theory, which explain many
apparently altruistic behaviors among animals.
While reciprocal altruism has its strengths, which include it allowing the existence of
truly altruistic acts (a condition which egoism denies), it seems to require certain conditions to
exist. Because of the dependence upon others this theory of morality requires, it would seem
all humans would have to be equipped with similar views in order for this to work. This problem
is addressed in the interesting research of Richard Dawkins on birds and their reciprocal
altruism. Birds have evolved to become cooperative in order to have the deadly parasites that
live on them removed by other birds. Dawkins calls this behavior type the “Grudgers”, because
they will only groom another bird if they have received or will receive a grooming for their
efforts. Is this how humans function, however? It is a definite problem to apply reciprocal
altruism to humans when human nature is so uncertain and widely different. Furthermore, for
reciprocal altruism to function correctly for all means everyone is receiving some sort of ‘good’
for their actions and most humans must be of the “Grudger” type. There cannot be an excess of
what Dawkins calls “Cheaters” or “Suckers”, or people who would only receive ‘good’ or people
who would only perform the altruistic acts and never receive. This does not seem a realistic
condition, considering the numerous rewards today’s society places upon selfishly motivated
actions. For example, the U.S. theory of capitalism stresses the ambition of the individual
creating success and ‘goodness’ for themselves, regardless of possible exploitation or immoral
behavior towards others. It is worth noting, too, that as ethical egoism suffers from a false
dilemma fallacy (allowing only two options while in reality others are available), reciprocal
altruism can seem to as well. Under this theory one acts either for someone else entirely (as a
moral action) or for themselves entirely (as an immoral action) while it’s rationally possible to
consider a person who can act due to both an altruistic and self-interested motive. While
reciprocal altruism is a similar idea, it does not solve the problems of ethical egoism and
perhaps even adds some to the table.
In considering the moral theories similar to egoism, the motivations ultimately stem
from an interest in one’s personal affairs being superior to the interests to those around them.
Personally, I found ethical egoism such a striking theory of morality because it addresses the
base inclination within humans to be selfish. This theory weakens, though, when confronted
with the occasional benevolence humans can possess. However, a theory for this altruism,
called reciprocal altruism, does not seem to cover all its bases, especially in its requirements of
human nature. This leaves us with a problem. These moral theories are not airtight. Which is
‘better’? However, perhaps they can never be universally applicable due to the fluidity of our
‘human nature.’ Maybe, it’s actually these inconsistencies that make us humans such a
fascinating topic for study.