The ethics of selfishness

If a person puts their own self-interest above all other considerations, they are said to be an egoist. Someone who claims that doing what is in their self interest is morally right is an ethical egoist, and someone who claims that doing so is rational is a rational egoist. In a trivial sense, any person with free will must act according to their preference or desires, and so acts to maximise their self-interest. Someone who acts altruistically does so because they wish to do so, so the satisfaction of that wish is in accordance with their self-interest. But other moral theories say that there are situations in which a person has an obligation to act altruistically in spite of their preference to do otherwise (or at least, in spite of any preference motivated other than by a desire to follow the requirements of that moral obligation). Ethical egoism puts no moral strictures: doing what one wishes is defined as moral behaviour.

Rational egoism is taken so much as a given that a person is declared sane based largely on the extent to which their actions are in accord with their best interest. We reluctantly make an exception for people who behave altruistically, within certain bounds, but in our individualistic culture the base-line for rational behaviour is not how actions benefit the community, or how they are in accordance with prescribed theology or tabus, but how they benefit the actor. More than this, the dominant religion of the modern world, economics, holds that only by every person acting in their own best interests can the great spirit of market forces act unimpeded to lift up the poor, the weak, and the downtrodden to achieve the utilitarian goal of the greatest good for all. This, which is the economic flipside of enlightened self-interest is an empirical claim, and can be tested by scientific analysis. Where enlightened self interest says benefiting others is the most efficient way to benefit oneself, market economics says by maximising personal benefit there is the side effect of benefiting others, and that this is more certain and more effective than attempting to benefit others directly. In it’s more acceptable manifestations, for example rational self-interest it places limits on the means of pursuing one’s own benefit (which by the way originated in the Wicca “an it harm none, do what thou wilt.”) Note that it’s possible to be, as many US Christian believers in market economics say they are, ethically altruistic but practically egoistic – from the belief that the most effective way to be altruistic is to pursue one’s self-interest.

Ethical egoism is put forward as a universalisable theory, but here it has problems. If I want something and someone else wants the same thing, how will we decide who gets it? The subjective nature of ethical egoism gives us no prescription in this case; any means to achieve our desires are sanctioned. The principle of interaction between people is therefore might makes right. Whether it makes sense as a moral theory or not, however, many people can be seen by their actions to be following this approach in practice. Even a situation like that of Bill Gates’ charitable foundation is not necessarily inconsistent with ethical egoism. Twenty billion dollars may have no extra utility if you already have five billion, but if spent to make the world (including you) a happier and more secure place, or if donating it to good works gives you pleasure, then this may be the right action from the point of view of ethical egoism. It’s not all about economics, either. Being kind to children and being nice to my neighbours is the right thing to do if that is what I wish to do – but it has no intrinsic value beyond that.

There’s another wrinkle to the idea. Someone who adheres to this theory will never espouse it unless they are also a rational egoist who believes that having others act by this principle will benefit them. If I think that I will benefit if others are altruistic, but that it is morally right for me to act selfishly, then I will do my best to encourage others in the idea that it is morally right to act altruistically, and reserve selfish actions to myself. Moreover I will try to describe my actions as altruistic when they are in fact selfish, so as to escape sanction and maintain the resolve of others to be generous.

If this is all sounding like someone you know, then I think there’s a reason for that. Most people, especially in the Western World (where individualism has overtaken the ethics of community and tabu), act selfishly whilst attempting to portray their actions as altruistic. They lie, cheat, and steal when they think they can escape the social and physical consequences of these actions, and they condemn others for behaving in this way. Society enforces sufficient limits on behaviour that the worst of “nature red in tooth and claw” is mitigated, but the powerful ensure that this does not seriously impede their actions most of the time. In this way everyone benefits according to their ability (their “might”) to ensure that their interests are respected. That’s not to say true altruism is completely absent, but it isn’t predominant as a guiding principle. Where it exists most surely is where it is enshrined by evolution in our desires and preferences. For example people are nice to children; people like being nice to children because it feels good, and because society as well as human nature has evolved strong sanctions against mistreating children.

But our complex modern world includes non-human actors which are created to have desires and preferences. Companies, in particular, have structures and systems which ensure that their only desire and preference is to make money. Because they look to both the long and short term they may not always seek to maximise their immediate profit, but they exist in a fierce darwinian system of competition with other companies for scarce means (shareholder capital), so they grow, consume one another, and struggle to create the wealth which their shareholders value. The movie The Corporation portrayed a company as a sociopathic human, but that’s not quite fair. Companies have more freedom of action than individuals, and more power within the system, and they use it like most humans aggressively to pursue their own ends without particular concern for the effects of this on others. What concerns they do have are related to the public relations effects of their perception in the community. This is why companies give to local charities, but it’s also why transnationals are particularly dangerous in their activities in poor countries on the other side of the world with weak governments – they can get away with it and no one will know.

This idea meets a surprising amount of resistance, but if you don’t immediately agree think through the following: the tobacco companies lies and deception; the reluctance of American auto manufacturers to build in safety features; Union Carbide at Bhopal, who have succeeded in avoiding paying much compensation through legal trickery and pressure on the Indian Government; Enron; the S&L “crisis” of theft and shady dealings; Halliburton’s war profiteering. The list could go on and on, and there may even be some counter-examples. Companies are run by individuals, after all, and they may make decisions which do good as a consequence of going well for the company.

So if people, corporations, or nations seem to be acting like hypocrites, it should be no surprise. Of course anyone can fail to live up to sincerely held beliefs, but a pattern of saying one thing and doing another may be an indication that true motivations are not the same as professed motivations.

All this aside, there’s another name for ethical egoism. It’s amoral.

This is not the same as evil, because amoral people can do good or evil as it suits them. You can trust them, so long as it remains in their interest to be honest. You can deal with them, so long as the structure of laws and penalties means that it’s in their interest to deal fairly. It’s taken me a long time to get here, but this is my point. A functioning civil society with well policed laws and clear penalties is required in order to ensure that it is in the interest of amoral people to behave within the bounds of civilised behaviour in their dealings with others. Most or many people are amoral. All corporations are amoral, and all or most governments seem to be. For this reason mechanisms of regulation, investigation, and penalty are essential to keep the behaviour of companies and governments within bounds which the majority of people find acceptable.

Proponents of hands-off unregulated free market economics are naive to think that this is possible without degeneration into robber-baron anarchy. Similarly governments must be constrained by systems of transparency, democracy, and judicial oversight if they are not to take advantage of their power to draw increasingly tyrannical power to themselves. I believe the United States is currently proof both these last two statements. It’s just a question of whether the situation has gone too far to the law of the jungle to be clawed back to a more humane and civilised arrangement.