Egoism and Altruism
Name of Student
Institution Affiliation
Egoism and Altruism
In philosophy, the concepts of egoism and altruism are fundamental. Rachels, in his post “Humans are not always selfish,” discusses the altruism concept by supporting that it exists. Altruism’s definition in philosophy context is a doctrine whereby societal morals guide an individual’s actions. These morals are based on how the impacts of an individual’s activities affect others. An individual’s actions are demanded to have concern and considerations on the happiness of others. Plato from his post, “Humans are always selfish,” comes out to discuss egoism as the soul of moral fabrics of the society. Contrary to the aspects of altruism depicted by Rachel, egoism, is a doctrine where self- interests are central to the moral fabric of the society. This doctrine is focused on the motivation behind an individual’s actions. Day to day activities require both altruism as well as egoism. To live in harmony with people, altruism must prevail. To fulfill individual goals and objectives, egoism is necessary. This paper will discuss egoism and altruism, as discussed in posts by Plato and Rachels, respectively.
From Rachels posts, it is evident that growth from a young age is based on the development of an individual’s will to shun from acting in one’s interests. Even though we instincts push a human being towards working towards one’s interests, it is evident that these instincts are shunned in society. However, the contradicting point about this post is that the societal ethics demand. Individuals are required to use their rights and abilities to make themselves the best they can in society (Rachels, & Rachels, (Eds.),2019). This is a drive towards realizing one’s potential. Looking at the aspect where human beings not being always selfish in another dimension, we can draw various inferences. It is not possible to empower other people without empowering ourselves first. It is, therefore, clear that individuals seek their personal developments so that they can be in a position to help others. A good example is where, before living with people who speak foreign languages, one needs to learn their language to get on the same page.
From the deductions from Rachels’ post, there are two types of egoism. Psychological egoism is a practice where the motivation of everyone’s actions lies solely on self-interest. A case example is whereby the rich help the poor because they have the money to do so, and it is right to do so. In another dimension is whereby, the rich help the poor because the money they have is not worth than the lives of the poor, and therefore, it is more honorable to give (Flener, 2015). In both actions, self- interests prevail as one has the choice to do what they want to do as long as it fits the bail of their self-interests. In ethical egoism, it is prescribed that everyone ought to act in the motive of self-interest. This doctrine leaves little or no room for choices. For example, the laws of the constitution must be followed without any exceptions.
In his post, Rachel refutes the idea that all acts are done for the self-interests of individuals. Rachel points out that individuals do what they do but not necessarily what is there to be done. Such actions are such as those meant to end a phenomenon. For example, when one has no money and has no Job, they will look for a job to stop their situation lack of funds. Other actions may include keeping promises. To keep a promise, an individual has to live the commitment by taking the necessary measures. These actions may not be due to self-interests but as a result of attaining what is supposed to be done. These examples depict a clear difference between selfishness and self-interest. Self -interests are mainly actions of maintaining the honor, respect, or even a social status (Wang, 2016). Selfishness, on the other hand, is the actions of individuals meant to gain from circumstances at the expense of others.
Rachel makes strong indications of people who gain satisfaction from helping others. Rachel indicates that it is not selfish to gain satisfaction from helping other people. He thinks these are among the altruistic characteristics some people have. Considering the situation that individuals give people in need to achieve satisfaction can be used as a weighing scale of identifying what is selfish and what is not amongst people. If an individual help people intentionally to attain satisfaction for themselves, that is selfish. If they give freely from their hearts, and that makes them feel satisfied with their actions, that is not selfish. Rachel writes that “isn’t the unselfish person precisely the one who derives satisfaction from helping others?” (Ivlampie, 2017). This statement makes it clear that individuals who give out free will as a way to attain satisfaction are entirely unselfish. On the other hand, a selfish person is one who helps while carrying grudge within themselves about their actions.
From Rachel’s post, he draws reliable inferences against ethical egoism. Ethical egoist indicates lots of hypocrisy as they do not accept their misdemeanors by telling it onto others that their actions are based on self-interests. These actions, therefore, makes these individuals wolves in sheep’s skin. Ethical egoists are among perpetrators of injustices, such as advantage taking of other people’s misfortunes. Other indications are that it is difficult to advocate for ethical egoism to be universally accepted in the society as it would create lots of social injustices. From the economic point of view, ethical egoism would promote a widening gap between the rich and the poor. Besides, a widening in skills difference would be experienced as experts would deliberately fail to share information and therefore to create a monopoly for self-interests (Salsman, 2015). In another perspective, it is difficult to universally accept ethical egoism as the characters of ethical egoists are such that their actions are not right for everyone. An ethical would not like actions they take taken against them.
The premises of ethical egoism are, therefore, wrong as they cannot be theorized. There is a lot of contradictions surrounding ethical egoism that lead to the failure of the generalization of its concepts. With various inconsistencies of practice, this makes unethical egoism have inconsistent logic. For example, ethical egoist believes that causing harm against others is okay. However, there is no substantial base for arguments hat pass it fit to cause damage to other human beings. Therefore, this argument is null. Egoists have a fundamental drive toward life that other people are not necessary.
Plato from his post makes strong indications that human beings are not altruistic. From the post, Plato uses Glaucon’s account to indicates that people view doing badly as desirable while suffering as a result of wrongdoing being bad. This is as even in justice systems; criminals deny charges against them until they are proven guilty of their wrongdoings. Taking this in consideration, it would be easy for criminals to accept their mistakes at first instance if the spirit of altruism prevails. The origin of justice in the first place is backed by a sense of altruism (Martinich, 2015). Pacts are formed to ensure that people live harmoniously without harming others. These pacts are the origins of justice. However, these pacts are rarely practiced as human nature is egoistic. These injustices make it difficult for altruism to prevail.
Human beings practice justice to avoid harming each other in society. Justice ensures that laws and pacts of agreements in the society are followed. With the rampant cases of lawbreaking, clear indications of lack of self-interests are drawn. In most cases, people obey the law as a result of fear of the consequences associated with lawbreaking. Glaucon who Plato shares ideas, reviews the ethical theories such as ethical relativism, ethical hedonism and comes up with conclusions that all persons are self- interested and egoistic. Self-interests are clearly shown by law breaking in form of stealing meant to give individuals mileage in terms posessions of the others. Besides, many forms of injustices are perpetrated as a result of the self- interests of human beings. Therefore, it is safe to say that egoism prevails over altruism in human beings.
With the understanding that unjust people believe that wrongdoing pays better, it is critical to analyze the rationale behind this thinking. First, we can conclude that the thinking that wrongdoing pays better is a a result of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Most people are appealed to the interests of the majority. For example, if many people practice corruption, it becomes an appeal for other people to perpetuate evil. Secondly, the appeal towards wrongdoing is as a result of human nature (Mulvaney, 2012). Human nature upholds egoism and shuns altruism. These contributions in society, therefore, make it hard to enforce law and justice and therefore validating Plato’s premise of “Humans are always selfish.”
Plato also made strong indications that there is a group of people that perpetuate injustice involuntarily. By this indication, it is clear that egoism is much present in people. With human beings having the power to act in a just manner, it is evident that human decisions mostly border the unjust. This injustice is as a result of the self-interests man has. These cases are escalated by conditions such as economic frameworks of society. In communist societies, there are rampant cases of injustices. This injustice is because humans in these societies act in their interests of acquiring as much wealth as possible. These actions towards the common good of the society are therefore not considered. Some people may be wealth and have surplus food for themselves, while others are succumbing to hunger. These actions are an epitome of ethical egoism in societies.
Conclusion
From the discussion, it is evident that the two premises by Rachel and Plato are true in their way. However, each premise has its shortcomings. The premise of Plato that indicates egoism as the basis for human moral fabrics is more applicable in the modern-day. Altruism is practiced, but it is not so effective.
References
Flener, P. (2015). Abstracts I, 29 November; Rachels & Rachels.
Ivlampie, V. (2017). Ethical Egoism, a Failure of Moral Theories. In Rethinking Social Action. Core Values in Practice (pp. 375-384). Editura Lumen, Asociatia Lumen.
Martinich, A. P. (2015). Philosophical writing: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
Mulvaney, R. J. (2012). Classic philosophical questions. Pearson Higher Ed.
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (Eds.). (2019). The right thing to do: Readings in moral philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield.
Salsman, R. M. (2015). Common caricatures of self-interest and their common source. Reason Papers, 37(2), 79-107.
Wang, Y. (2016). Abstracts I, 29 November; Rachels & Rachels.