IS EGOISM ARBITRARY?
Putting myself first is called egoism which is option one. Putting others first
is called altruism and it is option two. The third and last option is egotism
which is the view that I should put myself first in such a way that I walk over
others.
If you will not help John who is suffering unless you find even 1% of a benefit
in it for yourself then you are still more for yourself than him. Otherwise you
would just help. Self-concern however small gets the balance scales to work so
that you will act. That shows much much value you put on self-interest and
yourself.
Some objectors to egoism say that egoism is a theory so to obey it is to be
arbitrary. But altruism and egotism are theories too! Also, if we have no real
option only egoism then it is not a theory anymore but a truth. And it is truth
not theory.
Is choosing to be egoist arbitrary? Altruists say it and you should be
altruistic. Some egotists say it is arbitrary for there is no difference between
helping John so that you may see how good you are and doing it for his money. It
is not arbitrary for altruism is degrading yourself as if you are not as
important as the next person and egotism is just for the sociopath.
Even if you did not know what to choose egoism is the happy medium so it is not
arbitrary.
What I am most sure of in my life comes first. I come first for I am most sure
of my own existence. I know that everything else could be an illusion. But I
cannot believe that my existence could be an illusion for there has to be
something to have the illusion. This tells me that I should put myself first in
accordance with egoism.
It follows that anything I do should be done for my own pleasure and I should
train myself to enjoy simple and easy-to-do things like helping others for that
guarantees happiness. I can't feel safe in the world unless I am a very safe
person to know. What kind of person I am determines how I see the world. If I
can't do good that proves I am a good person I will not be very confident in the
goodness of others. I will suffer. The more good I do for others the more I am a
blessing for myself. I may not get rewards and I may meet with much ingratitude.
But my power to be happy despite it all will be my reward.
This is the answer to the silly idea that if I put myself first I am being
arbitrary. They say, "Why should you come first rather than your neighbour?" You
are not being arbitrary. In fact, the best way to love yourself is by doing all
you can for others. If you believe you must only work and live for the sake of
others that means you don't think much of them for you must expect each of them
to believe the same.
Altruism is based on treating the question of why I should come first rather
than my neighbour as demanding the answer: "I shouldn't but my neighbour
should." This makes no sense. It is far more arbitrary to heed altruism.
Egoism believes in the right of each person to be happy and to be their own
person. Rand and some ethical egoists seem to think that being happy yourself
puts you in conflict with the happiness of others. This view makes working for
the happiness of others seem self-destructive. That is a mistake for while
certain things that make me happy might have to make another unhappy in general
I cannot be happy unless the people around me are sufficiently happy. In most
cases, my happiness is taking from nobody else's or theirs mine. It does not
follow that if each person works for their own happiness that they cannot all be
happy.
I cannot help everybody and help every group. If I really see no benefit to me
in helping some people or some groups then I should leave them to the wolves.
This thought leaves the theory open to the accusation of being arbitrary. The
answer is that the best for me is to like everybody as much as I can for liking
is good for me. It feels good. This is not another example of instrumental
egoism. It is about what my nature prefers not what preferences I work up.
I need good so if is not there I have to make it. Making not serving is what
matters. If I serve others I am really trying to make good. My purpose is not to
serve but to make. Giving to others does not mean giving is your purpose. It
means it is not your purpose.
It is said that if we are inherently motivated by concern for others or concern
for ourselves then there are two contradictory theories and only a coin flip can
make you choose which one to go with. It is said that if we CAN BE motivated by
concern for others or concern for ourselves then there are two contradictory
theories and only a coin flip can make you choose which one to go with.
It is said that if you need your coin to choose which one then there is a
problem with either or both of them. But that does not follow. Both theories
could be possible and that does not mean anybody knows which one is possible.
Having to choose randomly between two strong theories does not mean that either
of them is unsound.
There is no use in me having a good motive if I cannot show it. Are we acting
nice to show our motives? Probably! That puts a limit on the alleged
arbitrariness.
Egoists do not behave in an arbitrary way and there are so many egoists in
society and who govern it and the sky has not fallen in.