Kelly Roden
PHIL 330
Dr. Veltman
9/30/13
Universal ethical egoism is the normative claim that people ought to look out for their
own self-interests. While there are three different types of egoism: personal, individual, and
universal, universal egoism is the strongest as a moral theory. According to universal ethical
egoists, it is morally right for all individuals to only do things that benefit themselves. While
philosophers have given many reasons to favor egoism as a moral doctrine, many others have
found flaws in the egoist’s reasoning. Overall, the criticisms outweigh the logic of egoism,
thereby defeating egoism as an effective guide to a moral life.
Philosophers have defended egoism with the argument that helping others often leads
to ineffective outcomes. Egoists would argue that everyone should only promote their own
interests “because no one else is more familiar with the agent’s own desires and needs and no
one else is more directly in a position to act in the situation than the agent is.” (Hinman 117)
For example, a person may go on a mission trip to an impoverished village to provide food
for the village people. However, the missionary does not have insight into the needs of the
village because he does not live there. While the missionary provides food for the people, the
problem may really be the unclean water supply. Therefore, the missionary, although acting
seemingly altruistically, does not really help anyone because he or she did not provide what
the village really needed.
Furthermore, egoists argue that altruism insults the self-dignity of its recipients. In
the example, the missionary insults the dignity of the people in the village by inhibiting the
2
village people from taking care of themselves. If the missionary takes care of the village
people, they “cease to be self-reliant and become passively dependent on others.” (Rachels
79) According to an egoist, stripping individuals of their autonomy by believing they are not
capable of taking care of themselves causes people to feel resentful rather than appreciative.
Therefore, in an egoist’s mind, people should only look out for themselves because to do
otherwise ultimately hurts other people.
Another argument put forth by philosophers in an effort to defend egoism is the idea
that egoism is compatible with common sense morality. For example, children are taught
when they are young to tell the truth, to keep promises, to not steal, etc. While these rules are
all distinct moral guidelines, according to ethical egoism they are united under one
underlying principle: that following these rules is in an individual’s self-interest.
To illuminate this principle, take as an example the classic story of the boy who cried
wolf. The first time the shepherd boy cries wolf everyone comes running to help him. When
they realize he lied, they all go away. The second time, people do the same. The third time,
however, there really is a wolf. The boy cries for help, but no one believes him, and no one
comes to help him. The wolf then eats his flock. Obviously, it is not the boy’s best interests
for the wolf to eat the boy’s sheep. If he did not lie the first two times about the wolf, people
would have helped him when a wolf actually came, and the boy’s sheep would’ve been
saved. This egoist spin aligns with the basic sense of morality that lying is wrong. The boy
originally cried wolf because he was bored. Eradicating his boredom fulfilled his short-tem
self-interest, but his lie was not in his long-term self-interest. Therefore, egoists make the
argument that since rational people make efforts to protect their long-term self-interests,
egoists would act in ways that also follow codes of morality.
3
While the above arguments for universal ethical egoism seem plausible, philosophers
have provided enough counterarguments to successfully dismantle ethical egoism as a
legitimate moral theory. Going back to the example of the missionary and the village people,
the ethical egoist would make the case that the missionary is harming the village people
because the missionary does not let the village people learn to take care of themselves. If an
ethical egoist believes that everyone only ought to look out for their own self-interests,
however, why does it matter that the missionary is harming the village people? If the
missionary is an ethical egoist, and feels good about helping the village people, then the
consequences of his or her actions to the village people shouldn’t matter. The missionary has
acted in a way that served his or her own self-interest.
This example shows a flaw in the anti-altruism argument used to promote ethical
egoism. To further demonstrate this flaw, Rachels makes another argument: 1. We ought to
do what will promote everyone’s self interests. 2. In order to promote everyone’s selfinterests, we must only look out for our own self-interests. 3.Therefore, we must only look
out for our own self-interests. This then suggests that “Rather than being egoists, we turn out
to be altruists with a peculiar view of what in fact promotes the general welfare.” (Rachels
80) Therefore, the anti-altruism argument in favor of egoism is flawed because it makes the
argument that people should promote the general welfare because it is morally right (which
can best be achieved by looking out for themselves) rather than the idea that people should
only look out for themselves because it is morally right.
While Rachels points out flaws in the anti-altruism argument, Hinman raises the issue
of moral insensitivity in the ethical egoist. Ethical egoist places tremendous value on
individual responsibility. Ethical egoists “tend to see individuals as largely, sometimes
4
completely, responsible for their own lives…” (Hinman 121) This viewpoint can lead to a
lack of compassion. For example, when the Jewish people were placed into concentration
camps during World War II, they certainly did not bring their fate on themselves. According
to the doctrine of ethical egoism, however, people should only help the camp prisoners if it is
in their own self-interests, since it is the camp prisoners who are ultimately responsible for
their own lives. However, this goes against our basic moral intuitions, which would dictate
that we help the prisoners.
Finally, Rachels presents an argument that, according to her, is the strongest support
towards discrediting egoism as a moral philosophy. This argument says that ethical egoism is
arbitrary. Ethical egoism places people into two groups: the individual and everyone else.
These groups have no significant features to distinguish them though, and “if we can find no
relevant difference between us and them, then we must admit that if our needs should be met,
so should theirs.” (Rachels 90). She sees this arbitrariness as akin to racism or anti-Semitism.
If we have no significant reason for the divide, then we have no answer to why promoting
one group over the other is morally right.
These arguments all unravel the logic behind ethical egoism. While philosophers have
found plenty of reasons to support ethical egoism, some of these reasons are flawed (such as
the anti-altruism argument), and others do not account for certain situations (such as camp
prisoners). Furthermore, ethical egoism cannot successfully explain why the individual self is
better than others. While it stands to reason that some actions derived from self-interest are
moral, ethical egoism does not successfully prove that an action is moral because it is selfinterested. Therefore, ethical egoism fails as a moral theory.