This topic is another of the significant examples I promised to provide of how the Law of Personal Interest operates in society.
In my previous posts on this forum—“An Examination of the Role of Personal Interest in Human Life,” “On Injustice…” “Is Corruption Inevitable from a Philosophical Perspective” in the Social Philosophy category, and “On Human Selfishness and the Pattern of Personal Interest” in the Ethics category, I have repeatedly asserted and attempted to consistently substantiate the existence of a certain pattern in the motivation behind human behavior in various situations. I have provisionally named this pattern the “Law of Personal Interest” (abbreviated as LPI). Since this article is largely a further development of the aforementioned publications, those who are not familiar with them may wish to review them for a deeper and more detailed understanding of THIS topic. If you have objections specifically regarding the existence of the Law of Personal Interest, I suggest we continue that part of the discussion there so as not to stray from the topic of this thread.”
Here, I will simply recall the very formula of this law of human existence:
“Most people, in most situations, are guided by personal interest and personal gain.”
In the aforementioned topics, I have demonstrated through numerous real-life examples that, in most life situations, a person acts in their own personal interest and for their own personal benefit. They take rational actions to maintain or improve their own lives and the lives of their loved ones: they earn a living, build a house, or buy an apartment; they furnish their homes with everything necessary, enhance their comfort, and satisfy their physical, cultural, informational, spiritual, and other interests. This is natural, normal, and necessary for people to fulfill their natural needs and desires and to solve various problems. Without such activities, people would be unable to build a normal life, achieve success, or reach their goals.
These are real-life examples where the law of self-interest plays a positive role, serves a useful function, and, as a rule, does no harm to anyone. But above the law mentioned above stands another, stronger philosophical law of dialectics—the law of the unity and struggle of opposites. Therefore, many social phenomena have not only positive but also negative manifestations.
And, as a result, the law of personal interest has, in addition to its positive aspects, its own quite significant negative manifestations. It is precisely these that I want to discuss in this topic.
The fact is that a person’s personal interests often overlap with the interests of another person, other people, or society. And this is where a conflict of interests arises—between this person’s personal interest and the interests of those whose sphere it encroaches upon. Conflicts of interest often give rise to real conflicts. These conflicts take various forms: at the mildest, they involve insults, arguments, shoving, and scuffles. But beyond that, attempts to satisfy one’s material interests lead to violence, looting, theft, and even murder, battles, and wars. All these conflicts give rise to injustice, suffering, pain, misfortune, harm to health and property, and breed evil.
Where a person who seeks to satisfy their interests at the expense of others—whom I call an aggressive egoist—is unable to achieve their criminal goals alone, they band together into groups: packs, gangs, clans—and commit violence, generating even more evil, now on a societal scale.
Next, let us consider another sphere of social life: the social (political) classes of employers and employees—slave owners and slaves, feudal lords and dependent peasants, landowners and serfs, capitalists and workers. These are all large groups of people called classes, and each is united by common or similar personal interests. And the personal interests of one class, as a rule, conflict with the personal interests of the opposing class. This gives rise to riots, uprisings, revolutions, and so on. The result is suffering, death, and ruin.
And what is the root cause? In the desire of each side of the conflict to satisfy its own personal interests (including those that are generalized and shared by the entire community)
Wars between nations and states have the same cause: the personal interests of leaders, generals, kings, and tsars—in seizing foreign lands, acquiring foreign wealth, and gaining glory. The rank-and-file soldiers of the aggressor also have their own interests—to obtain war booty and become wealthy (if the soldier is participating in the war voluntarily). If conscripted, there is still an interest: it is better to join the army than to be executed for refusal. And there is also the chance to capture trophies.
The defending side also has a common interest, but one that is just—to protect themselves, their families, their property, and their territory—which is a generalization of their personal interests. The result is a clash of interests: battles, destruction, wounds, maiming, deaths, captivity, and so on. And this evil arises from the pursuit of personal interests in opposition to the interests of other parties to the conflict.
There are many examples—and everyone can name some.
I have already written about ZOI as the main cause of injustice in a separate thread.
Now let’s look at the problem from another angle: here is a general list of sins condemned in the Bible.
• lying,
• false testimony,
• slander and abusive language;
• envy;
• greed (love of money);
• theft;
• fraud;
• unjust gain;
• bribery,
• heartlessness
• cruelty,
• hatred,
• quarrels and discord;
• murder
• illicit enrichment,
• misappropriation of another’s property,
• debauchery
Look at them closely and consider: which of these sins is not a consequence of the desire to satisfy personal interests at the expense of others?
One could examine in detail here how each of these examples of evil is linked to personal interest in the form of gross material and non-material gain. But surely everyone can analyze this on their own and draw their own conclusions.
Perhaps sins such as heartlessness and cruelty can sometimes be attributed to natural pathological flaws in human nature.
Thus, in my opinion, the examples given are sufficient to confirm the conclusion:
the negative component of the law of self-interest—specifically, that part of it expressed as aggressive selfishness—is the source of most human sins, injustices, suffering, poverty, violence, and deaths on earth, which can perhaps be summed up in a single unifying word: “EVIL”
Of course, this is a sad conclusion. But, unfortunately, this flip side of the Law of Self-Interest is a reality of real life.
But for those of you who are disheartened by this aspect of peronal interest, I ask you to wait just a little longer. Because I’m planning to publish at least two posts very soon that will greatly delight both you and me. These will be examples of the Law of Personal Interest in action that are extremely beneficial.
Egoism is a live option. There are philosophers like Ayn Rand (?) who’ve said that there’s no shame in being self-interested. It comports with the last paragraph that self-interest can be beneficial.
Yeah, I can’t see any problem with being self-interested. The issue arises with the fact that this isn’t a default mode for most (counter to the post). Most seem to act with other’s interests in mind. I’m not sure how I would go about enumerating objections to the OP, because at-base I don’t take it’s premise.
That said, I think Parfit made a really good go of talking about self-interest, why it doesn’t quite make sense, and why it is the case that most people are not all that self-interested anyway! One way of outlining his thesis there could be that The Self-Interest Theory is often presented as a psychological claim—that people are in fact motivated primarily by their own interests. Parfit argues this is plainly false. Ordinary experience shows that people frequently act from love, loyalty, duty, generosity, or commitment to ideals, even when these conflict with what would best serve their own interests.
It then talks about how the real philosophical question is therefore not whether people do pursue self-interest, but whether they ought to. The conclusion is something like “almost always no” I tend to agree with both his take on S theory and the conclusion that S theory probably isn’t heplful to humans
I found your post interesting. It seems clear from the text that you are genuinely concerned about humanity’s problems, and your words are written with sincerity. Moreover, after reading it, one gets the impression that you have personally experienced these experiences, and your text represents a profound personal reflection and attempt to assimilate, rationally, and consistently present what you consider evil.
As a logical conclusion to your line of reasoning, you arrive at a connection between the personal (selfish) interest of the individual and the adverse consequences, in the form of “evil,” for others.
Well, I seem to have heard all this somewhere before. For example, in Christianity, and before that, in the ancient Greek philosophers. The well-known conflict between personal interests and the interests of the group. Consequently, the traditional solution to this conflict is to moderate (correlate) one’s interests to the interests of the group, of society, to an appropriate degree, which should lead to a certain balance and harmony.
I believe there are no obvious logical holes in this reasoning, and for a contemporary, they are even self-evident and require no further proof.
But where, in my view, the real problems arise is in defining the criteria by which personal interests should be moderated. In defining the public interests themselves. In defining the boundaries of individual participation in society and society’s participation in individual.
This is where humanity has tried many things. At least over the past several thousand years.
After all, the problem is not so much establishing the fact that “evil” is bad, but rather establishing the content of the concept of “evil” itself; then, in investigating the origins of this concept; and then, in clarifying the necessity of this concept itself for regulating human relations.
What is considered proper? What is considered necessary? What is considered right or wrong? What are the criteria for determining what should be considered right? And finally, why is it inherent in our species to divide things into right and wrong?
As we can see, this is precisely what has preoccupied the minds of thinkers throughout the history of philosophy. And it still worries me.
Thus, some unexpected conclusions emerge.
It turns out that it’s not only “evil” as such that can be seen as the source of troubles. It turns out that it’s not only a person’s self-interest that can be the source of problems. Here, philosophers, for example, reflect on the extent to which self-interest is “personal” and the extent to which it is shaped by social norms, culture, and discourse.
In a recent thread on this forum, I wrote a little about misanthropy, which can arise precisely in the most consistent followers of moral norms. A misanthropy that subsequently becomes the basis for aggression and hatred.
Look at the mechanism.
A person so deeply internalizes certain moral norms—that is, ideas about good and evil, right and wrong—that they discover a discrepancy with these norms in virtually everyone around them. And then, the very adherence to a moral norm can become the basis for aggression.
There is another example. Take the Crusades. They can be explained by the interests of states and rulers, economic interests, political circumstances, and a host of other factors. But what about an individual who set out on a crusade, guided by the notion of establishing goodness and justice?
His immediate motive might not have been personal material interest at all. On the contrary, he might sincerely believe he was acting in the name of good.
What could this lead to, if not violence, suffering, and injustice?
These examples show that it’s not only personal interest—in the sense you use the term—that can lead to disaster. The problem, perhaps, runs deeper than the simple need to “tame” personal interest.
And here, in my view, a more difficult question arises: if personal interest must be limited, then who, by what means, and on what basis determines the boundaries of this limitation?
What exactly is the “public interest”?
Who has the right to determine that one interest is legitimate and another selfish?
Where is the line drawn between a permissible human interest and an interest that should be considered evil?
This, it seems to me, is where a much more complex philosophical problem begins.
Therefore, I find your post interesting precisely as a starting point for further exploration. Perhaps the problem lies not so much in the very existence of personal interest, but in our attempts to determine how personal interests should relate to one another and to some supposed “common good.”
I think this is an excellent starting point for endless exploration and discovery. I wish you success in your endeavors.
@Astorre.
Thank you for your comment and kind words. It’s not something you often see among philosophers right from the start of a discussion.
I’ve carefully considered your perspective on the issues related to mitigating the negative consequences of prioritizing personal interest. There are many of them, and I need to think carefully about my response. For now, I can only say that, in my view, personal interest continues to be a significant cause of evil,regardless of the success of efforts to combat it.
“There are philosophers, such as Ayn Rand (?), who have said that there is nothing shameful about being selfish.”
Here, I don’t entirely agree with either you or Ayn Rand—if she really did say exactly that. It depends on the degree of selfishness. Aggressive selfishness (as I define it) cannot be considered ethical
What do you think about whether prioritizing personal interest is truly the source of most of the evil in the world?
To me non-selfishness is an ideal. We all fall short of the glory of God. I suggest an experiment to settle the matter. Set aside 50 days or whatever number of days works for you. Randomly assign half (25) to the control group and the other half (the other 25) to the test group. On test/treatment days be unselfish and on control days be selfish. Measure your happiness with a scale of your own construction (0 for not happy at all, to 5 for very happy). Use statistics to compare the mean happiness scores. Is there a difference, is the difference statistically significant? Re-randomizing the data with 1000 simulations should be helpful.