In discussions about human behavior, I have repeatedly encountered the view that if a person acts in their own interests, this is already egoism.
At first glance, this seems logical. But is every personal interest really something that should automatically be called egoism?
A person wakes up, has breakfast, goes to work, earns money to support themselves and their family, rests after work, reads, exercises, meets friends, and takes an interest in art, science, religion, or philosophy .
All of these activities are carried out in their own personal interests. But if, in doing so, they do not harm others or pursue their interests at the expense of others, is there any reason to call such behavior egoisti c?
It is precisely here, in my opinion, that an important confusion aris es.
Personal interest and egoism are not the same th ing.
For the purposes of this discussion, I propose to understandegoismas behavior in which a person places their own interests above the interests of others and satisfies those interests at the expense of other people or soc iety.
Moreover, this is approximately how egoism is usually defined in encyclopedic so urces:
“Egoism (from the Latinego, meaning ‘I’) is a value orientation in which one’s own interests, needs, and benefit are placed above everything else while disregarding the interests of others. It is a pattern of behavior in which a person acts exclusively for their own benefit, often using other people as a means of achieving their own goals.”
To better understand the relationships between different forms of egoism, altruism, and other types of behavior, I propose considering several behavioral patterns. They are illustrated, approximately and only schematically, in the followi ng graph
In this discussion, I will use the following definitions of behavio ral types.
The first type is aggressive egoism (the red zone).
This is a situation in which a person seeks to satisfy their own interests above all else, regardless of how this affects other people. Whenever their interests conflict with those of others, they try to achieve their goals at the expens e of others.
The second type is rational egoism (the yellow zone).
Such a person also places their own interests first but understands that they live among other people and that life is better when relationships are based on cooperation. They are capable of seeking compromises, reaching agreements, making reasonable concessions, and sometimes helping others, provided that doing so does not require excessive s elf-sacrifice.
The third type is altruism (t he green zone).
Like everyone else, an altruist has natural personal needs and interests and seeks to satisfy them. However, when a conflict arises between their own interests and the interests of other people or society, they usually—or almost always—are willing to sacrifice their own interests for the benefit of others or for the common good.
In addition, such a person may voluntarily engage in charitable activities, sacrificing their own time, effort, money, or other resources.
The transition zones between the colors represent people whose motivations are mixed and whose behavior may vary depending on the circumstances.
The red and yellow zones together const itute the majority.
Of course, the graph does not claim statistical accuracy. Rather, the proportions shown reflect my own view of a general pattern in human motivation, which I f ormulate as follows:
“Most people, in most situations, are guided by their personal interests a nd personal benefit.”
Bypersonal interest, I mean all the needs, desires, goals, dreams, and aspirations that a person considers personally significant a nd for which they act.
Such interests may be material or non-material: physical, emotional, intellectual, creative, aesthetic , spiritual, and so on.
I have called this principle theLaw of Personal Interest (LPI). I have referred to it several times on this forum and promised to provide a more detailed justification in a separate discussion. That discussion has already been published in this category under the title“A Study of the Role of Personal Interest in Human Life.”
Note.The formulation of the LPI also allows for:
-
situations in which people are guided by considerations oth er than personal interest;
-
people who are often, or even predominantly, guid ed by other considerations.
However, in my opinion, both of these represent a minority.
It is also worth mentioning another fa irly common fourth situation.
This is when a person acts in their own interests, but those interests do not conflict with anyone else’s. They work, rest, study, pursue hobbies, communicate, develop themselves, seek comfort, enjoyment, knowledg e, beauty, or meaning in life.
Here, there is indeed a personal interest. But if people’s interests either do not intersect at all, or intersect without coming into conflict, then, in my opinion, it is inappropriate to spea k of either egoism or altruism.
This is because both egoism and altruism concern a person’s attitude toward other peoplewhen th eir interests are in conflict.
That is why I believe that not every form of behavior motivated by personal interest shoul d automatically be called egoism.
I have repeatedly observed philosophical discussions in which such ordinary actions were described as “egoistic” simply because the y were based on personal interest.
They certainly are based on personal interest. However, the wordegoismalmost always carries a negative moral connotation and is associa ted with selfishness or immorality.
But is there really any justification for calling someone an egoist simply because they work, care for their family, study, re lax, or pursue personal develop ment?
In my opinion, there i s not.
Now let us turn to altruism.
Here another, in my view, common confusion often arises.
Many people argue that so-called altruists, when performing charitable or selfless acts, may also be acting in their own interests—for example, to create a favorable impression on others or even in the hope of being rewarded in the afterlife.
On this basis, some conclude thatall al truistic actions are actual ly egoistic.
I take a different view.
I believe t here is a subtle but important distinction.
In such cases, these actions may indeed be classified as egoistic , or at least as motivated by mixed motives.
However, there are also situations in which a person does good simply because they genuinely wish to do go od, without any expectation of personal gain.
Even if helping others brings them inner satisfaction, I do not believe that this alone is sufficient reason to labe l them an egoist.
Of course, one may object:
“How can we know a person’s true motivation? From the outsid e, different mot ives may look exactly the same.”
That is true.
But this is a problem for the o bserver, not for the person performing the action.
Our inability to know someone’s true motives does not mean that those motives do not exist, nor does it prove that genuine selfless altruism is impossible.
In formulating my p rinciple, I donotdeny the existence of altruism.
On the contrary, I believe that genuine altruism does exist.
There are people who are truly willing to sacrifice their own interests for the sake of oth ers, and they certainly deserve respect and gratitude.
However, I d o not believe that such people constitute the majority.
In my opinion, most p eople are neither extreme egoists nor genuine altruists.
Rather, most belong to the category ofrational egoism: as already mentioned, they primarily care about their own interests while also bei ng capable of taking the interests of others into account