At first glance the philosophical views of egoism and altruism seem to be completely separate of one another. The statements associated with each don’t appear to have much in common. In altruism one answers the question of morality by saying, “I ought to act in the interest of others.” While egoism suggests, “I ought to act in the interest of myself.” How can acts of selflessness be classified with acts of selfishness? I will attempt to clarify this confusion later on, but first I think it would be best to give a better definition of each of these philosophical views.
In ethical altruism the issue of morality revolves around the idea that in order to live a morally correct life one must act in the interest of others. When saying this you must understand that acting in the interest of others does not imply a reward. So the politician who donates money to a charity in order to gain favorable public opinion, is not acting in accordance with altruism. In order for his actions to be morally correct, he would have to donate the money simply because it is the right thing to do; what he wants to do. It is what he must do. I believe that an honest act of altruism is displayed infrequently. One example I can offer up would be the person who sees an ambulance drive by and for a moment prays for whoever is inside.
In ethical egoism the issue of morality revolves around the idea that people must do what is best for themselves in order to live a morally correct life. When someone strives to reach a goal and sees others as an obstacle to their success, they could be viewed as egoists. In some cases of egoism, the idea of acting out of one’s self interest sometimes even extends to overlooking other’s interests in order to satisfy your own.
In looking at these two theories you might question how anyone could confuse them. Egoism and altruism appear to be two very clear and defined ways of thinking. How do you suppose a child acts when they are born? They obviously cannot reason at such an early age, yet they clearly take on an egotistic nature. They do things that satisfy themselves. Now getting deeper into this topic you’d begin to sway into psychological egoism by using such words as “impulse”. Labeling an infant’s actions as impulse would be to suggest that what they do in their own self interest is what comes naturally. When saying, “I naturally act in the interest of myself” you’re taking a psychological egoist’s view.
If you look at a group such as the Peace Corps., you would see that the majority of these people volunteer their time to helping others. Doctors, social workers, engineers and humanitarians alike give up their time and expertise to improve the life of those living in impoverished countries. Aside from living well below their means, these people often work for little or no pay, experience no fame and basically receive no credit for their good doings. Would it be simple enough to say that these people are acting altruistically, in the interest of others? Sure, but how did these doctors and such build their skills? At one point these humanitarians had to have some self interest in order to build on the foundation of knowledge they have acquired. It took some actions on their own self interest to get where they are now. Whether it was motivation driven by the interest to attain more knowledge or the lure of future financial success, is irrelevant. Either way these people were clearly acting according to the foundation of egoism, by acting out of one’s self interests.
You cannot let the word egoism fool you. Acting in the interest of yourself is not always a completely selfish thing. When most hear the word ego, they tend to think purely negative thoughts when in fact there is such a thing called rational selfishness, a term Ayn Rand uses to relate her philosophy of Objectivism.
When someone helps a fellow human being because they enjoy the feeling it gives them, is that in fact a quality of egoism? I believe that while it represents the basic ideas of altruism, this is where the two branches coincide. While I think altruism rather than egoism, has a better outline for how one should live life; I conclude that a combination of the two is probably more realistic.