WASHINGTON -- Although they may not be consciously aware of it and never have declared themselves to do so, many of today's corporate chieftains -- and not just the convicted felons such as Jeffrey Skilling and Ken Lay and others of their ilk -- hold to a stance for themselves that is often called egoism.

A classical statement of egoism occurs in a speech by John Galt in Russian-born writer and philosopher Ayn Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged" -- a book that got a great deal of attention for a decade or so after it was first published in the United States in 1957 and that had a lot of influence on that generation's proponents of American libertarianism.

Galt says, "As a basic step of self esteem, learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any man's demand for your help. To demand it is to claim that your life is his property -- and loathsome as such claim might be, there's something still more loathsome: your agreement. Do you ask if it's ever proper to help another man? No - if he claims it as his right or as a moral duty you owe him. Yes -- if such is your own desire based on your selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle.... I swear - by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Egoism is the view or theory that people act out of their own self-interest. There are two versions of egoism. One is known as psychological or descriptive egoism; this view holds that people do, in fact, act in their own self interest. The second version of egoism is known as ethical egoism or normative egoism; it holds that people should (or ought to, in the ethical sense of 'ought' or 'should') act in their own self-interest.

Several questions arise immediately when we speak of self-interest. First, is it really true that people always act only for their self-interest? Second, when people think they are acting in their self interest, are they really doing so, or only acting in what they think (possibly mistakenly) is their self interest? Third, what is the meaning or definition of "self" in this term "self-interest?"

The strongest version of psychological egoism holds that whatever people do, they do in fact always act only out of their own self interest. But this claim has the obvious problem that people seem to act for various other motivations other than just self-interest. The egoist has to claim that these other motivations are only a mask for self interest, that the person who is doing something altruistic (i.e. action done for the sake of another) is really being altruistic for his own self interest -- he is doing this, the egoist claims, because he has a self interest in being seen by others as being altruistic or because he gets pleasure (thus satisfying his self interest) in being altruistic.

This response by the egoist seems to me to commit a version of what I call the "All fire engines are red" fallacy. Suppose someone claims that all fire engines are red. I reply that this is not true because I've seen green and yellow ones. The first person then responds, "But those are not true fire engines because all fire engines are, by definition, red." The first person may thus win the argument, but does so only by introducing a highly tendentious -- and false -- definition of "fire engine." I think that, in a similar way, strict egoists likewise set up tendentious -- and false -- accounts of human motivation and altruistic behavior.

To the second question, proponents of egoism must distinguish between people's genuine self interest and their apparent self interest. Thus most of us would hold that a person who smokes a lot of cigarettes or who takes heroin is not in fact acting out of his self interest because those practices are highly self destructive. The proponent of egoism says that such people are acting not out of their true self interest but only their apparent self interest; such addicts, the egoist claims, believe that their actions are in their self interest, even though they are not in their actual self interest, and thus they do what they do out of their self interest after all. That answer, however, flies in the face of the fact that many addicts will say explicitly that they are not acting in their self interest when they continue to smoke or take drugs. This suggests that people are aware of the difference between true and false self interest and are well aware that they sometimes act out of motives other than self interest, either true or false self interest.

There are numerous notions of the self that is at the heart of self-interest. One is a self that seeks pleasure and attempts to avoid pain. We can call this the hedonistic self. A problem is that such a self attends to the present and possibly the immediate future; it does not think of pleasure or pain in much of a long-term way. But long term self interest may be and often is achieved through a long period of sacrifice and pain. The hedonist does get around the problem of the distinction between true and false self interest this way; he simply ignores the problem by declaring that self interest is whatever produces pleasure and avoids pain.

A second notion of the self is what some have called the self as a bearer of projects. According to this view the self-interest is that which promotes the individual's projects and the opposite of self interest is whatever will thwart those projects. This view holds that people act in such a way as to promote their projects, whatever the particular projects of a particular individual may be.

Ethical or normative egoism moves from the (supposed) observation that people actually act to promote their self interest to the view that they should -- that it is ethically right that they -- act to promote their self interest. But a fallacy -- a mistake in reasoning -- often occurs here. It is one thing to say that people do, in fact, act in their self interest. It is quite another to say that they ought to act this way. The first -- the statement of alleged fact - even if true (and that is highly dubious) does not lead logically to the statement that thy ought to act this way.

A number of reasons can be given in support of ethical egoism. One is that of John Galt, who says, in effect, that altruism is demeaning to the individual. A second reason, sometimes attributed to economist Adam Smith (the famous 18th century economist-ethicist and writer of The Wealth of Nations), is that each person's pursuit of his/her self interest will, by the action of an invisible hand, lead to the common or general interest. In other words, this view holds that if everyone practiced ethical egoism this will or would lead to a better world. The problem with that argument is that not everyone has equal power and ability -- Adam Smith's argument depended on a more-or-less equal distribution of power, information, and ability among the actors in his economic drama -- and thus in pursuing their self interest the strong will prey on the weak, and the less powerful or wealthy or knowledgeable will be abused (and thus unable to achieve their self interest) by the actions of the powerful, the wealthy, and those with greater knowledge.

One kind of proponent of self interest -- we might call such a person a conscienceless one, without concern for others -- might reply that he does not care if his actions harm others. That is for the others to worry about. His concern is for himself and, so long as he is happy, that is all that matters, the others be damned. This is the view that seems to be taken (usually tacitly) by many of today's corporate chieftains and others who act to enhance their bottom line, without regard for what this does to other people or the community at large.

Plato's great dialogue The Republic can be seen as an extended discussion of and reply to that issue. In Book 1 of the Republic, Thrasymachus declares that the best life is to be an unjust tyrant who does whatever he wants and who is powerful and clever enough to get away with it. At the beginning of book 2, Glaucon takes up and strengthens Thrasymachus's point. Socrates goes on to make the point even stronger by supposing that there could be a Ring of Gyges that would render its wearer invisible, meaning that the wearer could do whatever he wanted without the threat that he would be caught and prosecuted. This eliminates the possible counter argument that such a tyrant or conscienceless person runs the risk of being prosecuted or otherwise harmed by other people because of his actions. Plato then goes on throughout the rest of the Republic attempting to reply to this challenge. His ultimate answer is that such a person -- the conscienceless tyrant -- would have a disordered soul and that he would be without true friends.

That answer could be thought of as still a claim about self interest because it is not in anyone's self interest -- in the view of Plato and of many other people anyway -- to have a disordered soul and to have no true friends. But, although this notion of self interest is the final answer of many Christians and other people to the question of ethics, it is a much more complex and long term notion of self interest than most people appeal to when they advocate ethical egoism.

In any case, even if those corporate chieftains (and anyone else for that matter) should hold that what they ought to do is seek their self interest in that conscienceless way that many of them seem to do, they do run the risk of being prosecuted and landing in jail. But even if they avoid prosecution, they end up with disordered souls and only those friends who are with them for what they can provide. That is, I think, a refutation of the notion of ethical egoism that claims it is right to do whatever promotes one's self interest.

Lloyd Eby teaches business ethics at the George Washington University in Washington, DC. An extended discussion of the issues raised here, plus more, occurs in Chapter 4 of the book "Ethics: A pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory," by Lawrence H. Hinman.

 Download entire page and pages related to it in ZIP format
Table of Contents
Information
Tparents Home