Egoism Vs Altruism

We have studied the two major theories that answer the question, “who should I be?”. These theories are egoism and altruism. In this paper, I will argue that the correct moral theory lies in-between the theories of egoism and altruism.

When answering the question, “who should I be?” we need to pick the moral theory that allows us to achieve eudaimonia. Aristotle based his moral theory off of virtue ethics, the practice of finding the golden mean through reason, which is found between two vices. It can be reasonably inferred that Aristotle believed egoism and altruism to be vices and that in the middle lies the virtue, in this case the moral theory I am arguing for. Similarly, when answering the question “to be or to do?” William Frankena replied

that morality is based BOTH on one’s character and actions. Aristotle and Frankena both refused to limit themselves to one option as it’s foolish to side with only one theory when both carry substantial value, as do I.

The bird evolution example further illustrates why an in-between moral theory is correct. In a perfect world, all birds would be suckers (altruism) where everyone grooms each other and the population flourishes. Unfortunately, there are many cheaters (egoism) in the world that refuse to groom others but receive grooming from the suckers. This results in the extinction of the suckers, followed by the death of all cheaters. In a world inhabited by grudgers (mix) who require mutual reciprocity, it would be impossible for the population to die. This directly correlates to human morality. One shouldn’t act like a narcissist in order to ensure their happiness, because in the end that will not make them happy.

Similarly, one shouldn’t allow themself to be pushed around as this will not leave them happy either. A combination of both is required to properly pursue happiness as there is a time and place for both theories. Others argue against this.
Ayn Rand argues in favor of ethical egoism.

I will summarize her main argument, it goes as follows. The goal of life is to be happy. Altruism prescribes that we sacrifice our interests for the happiness of others. Therefore, altruism is incompatible with the goal of happiness. Egoism prescribes that we seek our own happiness exclusively. Therefore, ethical egoism is the correct moral theory. At the surface, this seems valid but Louis Pojman breaks down this argument. Pojman offers a critique with his four arguments against ethical egoism. Pojman starts with his inconsistent outcomes argument. This states that if everyone had their own belief system the world would be insane as everyone would be doing only what is best for them leaving the world chaotic. His publicity argument states that an egoist cannot express his egoistic ideas without harming his goal which is a contradiction. The paradox of egoism argument states that egoists would have to give up self-interest to maximize happiness, for example friendship. Lastly, the argument from counterintuitive consequences claims it’s always wrong to help others which seems wrong to most people. This leaves egoism with some major

flaws.
Rachels explores the dilemma by examining the pros and cons of both theories. He starts with arguments in favor of ethical egoism, they go as follows. Altruistic policies are self defeating because you invade other people's privacy. Issue, the reason for accepting these policies are un-egotistical. Second, the valuable individual argument states that an altruists first concern is not how to live their live but how to sacrifice it. Issue, this creates a false dichotomy. Third, the explains common sense morality argument states that we have to change our instinct to comply with altruism. Issue, it misses the central reason and is too general. He then argues against ethical egoism starting with the conflicts of interest argument which argues that egoism cannot provide solutions for conflicts of interests and that we need moral rules. Issue, it doesn’t need to. Second, the logically inconsistent argument states that egoism leads to contradictions. Issue, egoists can get around this by saying you can prevent someone from doing their duty if it’s to your advantage. The third argument, and the most powerful, is the arbitrariness objection which states that racism and sexism would be permissible which offers distinctions without moral difference. Rachels does not see an issue with this argument which is why he favors altruism.
Due to both the successes and failures of egoism and altruism, having a balance of each is necessary to achieve a happy life.