SELFISHNESS IS REASONABLE– an ethical teaching that assumes that: a) all human actions are based on an egoistic motive (the desire for one’s own good); b) reason makes it possible to single out from the total volume of motives those that constitute correctly understood personal interest, i.e. allows us to discover the core of those egoistic motivations that correspond to the rational nature of man and the social nature of his life. The result of this is an ethical-normative program, which, while maintaining a single (egoistic) basis of behavior, presupposes that it is ethically obligatory not only to take into account the interests of other individuals, but also to perform actions aimed at the common benefit (for example, good deeds). At the same time, reasonable egoism can be limited to stating that the desire for one's own benefit contributes to the benefit of others, and thereby sanction a narrowly pragmatic moral position.
In the Ancient era, during the birth of this model of ethical reasoning, it retained its peripheral character. Even Aristotle, who developed it most fully, assigns it the role of just one of the components friendship . He believes that “the virtuous must be a self-lover,” and explains self-sacrifice through the maximum pleasure associated with virtue. The reception in the Renaissance of ancient ethical ideas (primarily Epicureanism, with an emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure) is accompanied, for example, by L. Valla with the requirement to “learn to rejoice in the benefits of other people.”
The theory of rational egoism was developed both in the French and in the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment - most clearly in A. Smith and Helvetia . Smith combines the concepts of economic man and moral man into a single concept of human nature. According to Helvetius, a rational balance between the egoistic passion of the individual and the public good cannot develop naturally. Only a dispassionate legislator, with the help of state power, using rewards and punishments, will be able to ensure the benefit of “the greatest possible number of people” and make the “benefit of the individual” the basis of virtue.
The doctrine of rational egoism received detailed development in the late works of L. Feuerbach. Morality, according to Feuerbach, is based on a sense of one’s own satisfaction from the satisfaction of the Other - the main model of his concept is the relationship between the sexes. Feuerbach tries to reduce even seemingly anti-eudaimonistic moral actions (primarily self-sacrifice) to the action of a rational-egoistic principle: if the happiness of the I necessarily presupposes the satisfaction of You, then the desire for happiness as the most powerful motive can resist even self-preservation.
The rational-egoistic concept of N. G. Chernyshevsky is based on such an anthropological interpretation of the subject, according to which the true expression of utility, which is identical to good, consists in “the benefit of man in general.” Thanks to this, in a collision of private, corporate and universal interests, the latter should prevail. However, due to the strict dependence of the human will on external circumstances and the impossibility of satisfying higher needs before satisfying the simplest, a reasonable correction of egoism, in his opinion, will be effective only if the structure of society is completely remade.
In philosophy of the 19th century. ideas related to the concept of rational egoism were expressed by I. Bentham, J. S. Mill, G. Spencer, G. Sidgwick. Since the 50s 20th century reasonable egoism began to be considered in the context of the concept of “ethical egoism.” Similar provisions are contained in the prescriptivism of R. Hear. An extensive criticism of the theories of rational egoism is presented in the works of F. Hutcheson, I. Kant, G. F. W. Hegel, J. E. Moore.
A.V.Prokofiev
ethical concept put forward by the enlighteners of the 17th-88th centuries. which is based on the principle that a correctly understood interest must coincide with public interest. Although a person is by nature an egoist and acts only out of his own interest, out of his innate desires for pleasure, happiness, glory, etc., he must obey the requirements of morality, public interests, first of all, because this will ultimately be beneficial to him. Hence, being a reasonable egoist, a person acts morally in his actions - he does not act hypocritically and does not deceive other people, satisfying his own interest. This theory was developed by Helvetius, Holbach, Diderot, and Feuerbach.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
SELFISHNESS IS REASONABLE
an ethical teaching that assumes that: a) all human actions are based on an egoistic motive (the desire for one’s own good); b) reason makes it possible to single out from the total volume of motives those that constitute correctly understood personal interest, that is, it allows us to discover the core of those egoistic motivations that correspond to the rational nature of a person and the social nature of his life. The result of this is an ethical-normative program, which, while maintaining a single (egoistic) basis of behavior, presupposes that it is ethically obligatory not only to take into account the interests of other individuals, but also to perform actions aimed at the common benefit (for example, good deeds). At the same time, reasonable egoism can be limited to stating that the desire for one's own benefit contributes to the benefit of others, and thereby sanction a narrowly pragmatic moral position.
In the Ancient era, during the birth of this model of ethical reasoning, it retained its peripheral character. Even Aristotle, who developed it most fully, assigns it the role of just one of the components of friendship. He believes that “the virtuous must be a self-lover,” and explains self-sacrifice through the maximum pleasure associated with virtue. The reception in the Renaissance of ancient ethical ideas (primarily Epicureanism, with an emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure) is accompanied, for example, by L. Balla with the requirement “to learn to rejoice in the benefits of other people.”
The theory of rational egoism was developed both in the French and in the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment - most clearly in A. Smith and Helvetius. Smith combines the concepts of economic man and moral man into a single concept of human nature. According to Helvetius, a rational balance between the egoistic passion of the individual and the public good cannot develop naturally. Only a dispassionate legislator, with the help of state power, using rewards and punishments, will be able to ensure the benefit of “the greatest possible number of people” and make the “benefit of the individual” the basis of virtue.
The doctrine of rational egoism received detailed development in the late works of L. Feuerbach. Morality, according to Feuerbach, is based on a sense of one's own satisfaction from the satisfaction of the Other - the main model of his concept is the relationship between the sexes. Feuerbach tries to reduce even seemingly anti-eudaimonistic moral actions (primarily self-sacrifice) to the action of a rational-egoistic principle: if the happiness of the I necessarily presupposes the satisfaction of You, then the desire for happiness as the most powerful motive can resist even self-preservation.
The rational-egoistic concept of N. G. Chernyshevsky is based on such an anthropological interpretation of the subject, according to which the true expression of utility, identical to good, consists in “the benefit of man in general.” Thanks to this, in a collision of private, corporate and universal interests, the latter should prevail. However, due to the strict dependence of the human will on external circumstances and the impossibility of satisfying higher needs before satisfying the simplest, a reasonable correction of egoism, in his opinion, will be effective only if the structure of society is completely remade.
In philosophy of the 19th century. ideas related to the concept of rational egoism were expressed by I. Bentham, J. S. Mill, G. Spencer, G. Sidgwick. Since the 50s 20th century reasonable egoism began to be considered in the context of the concept of “ethical egoism.” Similar provisions are contained in the prescriptivism of R. Hear. An extensive criticism of the theories of rational egoism is presented in the works of F. Hutcheson, I. Kant, G. F. W. Hegel, J. E. Moore.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
The word “egoist” in our society is considered a dirty word, because even from childhood, you cannot think only about yourself, but you need to share with others and give in. With age, the idea that selfishness is bad becomes increasingly stronger in the child’s mind, because both parents and teachers tell him that respectable people care about the needs and comfort of others and work for the good of society, and do not live by their own interests. Therefore, it is natural that the majority of adult men and women do not want to appear selfish in the eyes of society and often, to the detriment of their own interests, realize the desires of others.
Altruistic behavior, compliance and sacrificing one's own interests for the sake of the needs of others are encouraged by public opinion, so many ordinary citizens are confident that selfishness is a character trait that needs to be eradicated. Meanwhile, more and more psychologists and psychotherapists are changing their minds towards egoism and claim that being an egoist is absolutely normal for every mentally healthy person. Experts in human souls are inclined to think that people should not suppress selfish aspirations in themselves and not sacrifice their own needs for the sake of others, but nevertheless, selfishness should be “reasonable.” Let's try to figure out whether selfishness is actually good or bad? And how does reasonable egoism differ from unreasonable one?
Who are the egoists?
Before considering the question of whether selfishness is a bad or a good character trait, it is necessary to define who selfish people are. Word in the dictionary egoism is interpreted as a character trait that forms a type of behavior in which a person aims to satisfy his own needs and wants and puts his own interests above the interests of others. That is, egoists are people who live as they want and do what they want, without taking into account the desires of others. Egoism among the common people is often confused with egocentrism, but in fact these concepts are not identical.
Egocentrism is characterized by a person’s inability to perceive any opinion that diverges from his point of view. Based on this definition, we can conclude that egocentrism can be inherent in an egoist, but not always, because many people who put their interests above the needs of others can still listen to others, perceive their arguments, admit mistakes and change their point of view.
Full The opposite of selfishness is altruism - the willingness to perform selfless acts for the benefit of other people, without taking into account personal interests and desires. Altruism and selfishness are, at first glance, complete opposites, but in fact, both of these character traits are inherent to almost all people to one degree or another, since in some situations even the kindest and most selfless can behave selfishly, and in some they are selfish capable of altruistic actions.
Is selfishness bad or good?
Nature designed it so that everything living beings are primarily guided by instincts aimed at survival and the preservation of the species, and this rule is no exception. Both animals and people instinctively strive to fulfill their own needs and are ready to compete with representatives of their own and other species for the right to possess resources. That's why selfishness is an innate character trait of a person,
since it is precisely this that allows one to realize the needs associated with ensuring life activity and establishing one’s own status in society.
However, people are a social species, and in isolation from society, the development of a person’s personality is impossible. It is precisely in order to make the living of each individual in society comfortable that so-called social contracts were formed - unwritten rules and norms governing the interaction of members of society with each other. Altruism, mutual assistance, guardianship and protection of the weakest and resolution of conflicts through compromise are important components of the social contract in human society, since they provide a comfortable and safe life for each individual member of society.
Based on the above, it becomes obvious that selfish behavior is the norm for humans, but every member of society must restrain their selfish impulses, to . And the most important thing for every person is to be able to find a balance between selfishness and altruism so as to be able to realize their needs and goals and at the same time not infringe on others.
Distortions in behavior both towards selfishness and altruism are always fraught with negative consequences for the individual. A person who always adheres to a selfish line of behavior and at the same time infringes on the interests of others, sooner or later risks becoming an outcast in society and losing all his friends and relatives, since no one will tolerate a notorious egoist around for long. And people who are always ready to give up their own interests for the sake of others can very quickly find themselves, as their kindness will begin to be taken advantage of without giving anything in return. A striking example of what excessive altruism leads to are women in relationships with tyrants, alcoholics and drug addicts. These women spend their time and vitality trying to please their partner and save him, but in the end they only have a crippled psyche and undermined physical health.
It's obvious that selfishness is a necessary character trait for every person, since it is it that allows people to realize their needs, achieve your goals and find your happiness. But still, each person must behave in such a way that, while satisfying his desires, he does not infringe on other members of society. And it is precisely this line of behavior that modern psychologists call reasonable egoism.
What is reasonable egoism?
According to psychologists, reasonable egoism is a behavior strategy in which a person makes active efforts to self-development and achieve his goals without infringing on the interests of others and without coming into conflict with society. And the main differences between reasonable selfishness and excessive one are the following:
Reasonable egoism is the ideal balance between innate egoism and altruism acquired in the process of socialization. And more and more psychologists recommend that their clients develop precisely this strategy of behavior, and not deny their own selfishness. According to experts, reasonable egoism is precisely that form of thinking and behavior that allows a person to live in harmony with himself and the world around him, realize his goals and find his place in society.
Reasonable egoism is a term often used in the last years of the nineteenth century to denote a philosophical and ethical position that establishes for each subject the fundamental priority of the subject’s personal interests over any other interests, be they public interests or the interests of other subjects.
The need for a separate term is apparently due to the negative semantic connotation traditionally associated with the term “egoism.” If an egoist (without the qualifying word “reasonable”) is often understood as a person who thinks only about himself and/or neglects the interests of other people, then supporters of “reasonable egoism” usually argue that such neglect, for a number of reasons, is simply unprofitable for the neglecter and, therefore, it does not represent selfishness (in the form of a priority of personal interests over any others), but only a manifestation of short-sightedness or even stupidity. Reasonable egoism in everyday understanding is the ability to live by one’s own interests, without contradicting the interests of others.
The concept of rational egoism began to take shape in modern times; the first discussions on this topic were found already in the works of Spinoza and Helvetius, but it was presented in full only in Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?” In the 20th century, the ideas of rational egoism were revived by Ayn Rand in the collection of essays “The Virtue of Selfishness,” the story “Hymn,” and the novels “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged.” In Ayn Rand's philosophy, reasonable egoism is inseparable from rationalism in thinking and objectivism in ethics. Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden also dealt with reasonable egoism.
The concept of “reasonable egoism”. This concept emphasizes that socially responsible business is simply “good business” because it helps reduce long-term profit losses. By implementing social programs, the corporation reduces its current profits, but in the long term creates a favorable social environment for its employees and the territories of its activities, while creating conditions for the stability of its own profits. This concept fits into the theory of rational behavior of economic agents.
The essence of reasonable egoism is that in economics it is customary to consider opportunity costs when doing business. If they are higher, then the case is not pursued, because You can, for example, invest your resources in another business with greater benefit. The key word is benefit. This is normal for the economy and business.
But as far as the sphere of human relations is concerned, the principle of benefit (the leading principle of economics) turns people into animals and devalues the essence of human life. Relationships in line with reasonable egoism are guided by an assessment of the benefits of various relationships with people and the choice of the most profitable relationship. Any mercy, manifestation of selfless love, even true charity with t.z. of a reasonable egoist - are meaningless. Only mercy, patronage of the arts, charity for the sake of PR, receiving benefits, and various posts make sense.
Another mistake of rational egoism is equating benefit and goodness. This is at least not reasonable. Those. reasonable egoism contradicts itself.
Reasonable egoism is the ability to find a balance between people's needs and one's own capabilities.
Reasonable egoism is characterized by a greater understanding of life, and is a more subtle type of egoism. It can also be aimed at the material, but the method of receiving or achieving it is more reasonable and less fixated on “I, me, mine.” Such people have an understanding of what this fixation leads to, and they see and use more subtle ways of getting what they want, which brings less suffering to themselves and others. Such people are more reasonable (ethical) and less selfish, they do not go over the heads of others or go ahead, do not commit violence of any kind and are inclined to honest cooperation and exchange, taking into account the interests of everyone with whom they deal.
The theory of rational egoism originates from the philosophical constructions of such outstanding thinkers of the 17th century as Locke, Hobbes, Puffendorf, Grotius. The idea of a “lonely Robinson,” who in the natural state had unlimited freedom and replaced this natural freedom with public rights and responsibilities, was brought to life by a new way of activity and management and corresponded to the position of the individual in an industrial society, where everyone owned some kind of property (let even only for their own labor force), i.e. acted as a private owner and, therefore, relied on himself, his own sound judgment about the world and his decision. He proceeded from his own interests, and they could not be discounted, since the new type of economy, primarily industrial production, is based on the principle of material interest.
This new social situation was reflected in the ideas of the enlighteners about man as a natural being, all of whose properties, including personal interest, are determined by nature. Indeed, in accordance with his bodily essence, everyone strives to obtain pleasure and avoid suffering, which is associated with self-love, or self-love, based on the most important of instincts - the instinct of self-preservation. Everyone argues this way, including Rousseau, although he deviates somewhat from the general line of reasoning, recognizing altruism along with reasonable egoism. But he also quite often turns to self-love: The source of our passions, the beginning and basis of all others, the only passion that is born with a person and never leaves him while he is alive is self-love; this passion is primary, innate, preceding any other: all others are in a sense only its modifications... Self-love is always suitable and always in accordance with the order of things; Since everyone is entrusted first of all with his own self-preservation, the first and most important of his concerns is - and should be - precisely this constant concern for self-preservation, and how could we care about it if we did not see our main interest in this? .
So, every individual in all his actions proceeds from self-love. But, being enlightened by the light of reason, he begins to understand that if he thinks only about himself and achieves everything only for himself personally, he will face a huge number of difficulties, primarily because everyone wants the same thing - satisfaction of their needs, means for which there is still very little. Therefore, people gradually come to the conclusion that it makes sense to limit themselves to some extent; this is not done out of love for others, but out of love for oneself; therefore, we are not talking about altruism, but about reasonable egoism, but such a feeling is a guarantor of a calm and normal life together. XVIII century makes its own adjustments to these ideas. Firstly, they relate to common sense: common sense pushes one to comply with the requirements of reasonable egoism, because without taking into account the interests of other members of society, without compromises with them, it is impossible to build a normal everyday life, it is impossible to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of the economic system. An independent individual relying on himself, the owner comes to such a conclusion on his own precisely because he is endowed with common sense.
Another addition concerns the development of principles of civil society (which will be discussed later). And the last thing concerns the rules of education. Along this path, some disagreements arise among those who developed the theory of education, primarily between Helvetius and Rousseau. Democracy and humanism equally characterize their concepts of education: both are convinced that it is necessary to provide all people with equal opportunities for education, as a result of which everyone can become a virtuous and enlightened member of society. While asserting natural equality, Helvetius, however, begins to prove that all the abilities and talents of people are absolutely identical by nature, and only upbringing creates differences between them, and a huge role is played by chance. Precisely because chance interferes with all plans, the results often turn out to be completely different from what a person originally expected. Our life, Helvetius is convinced, often depends on the most insignificant accidents, but since we do not know them, it seems to us that we owe all our properties only to nature, but this is not so.
Rousseau, unlike Helvetius, did not attach such importance to accidents; he did not insist on absolute natural identity. On the contrary, in his opinion, people by nature have different inclinations. However, what comes out of a person is also mainly determined by upbringing. Rousseau was the first to identify different age periods of a child’s life; In each period, one particular educational influence is perceived most fruitfully. So, in the first period of life it is necessary to develop physical abilities, then feelings, then mental abilities and finally moral concepts. Rousseau urged educators to listen to the voice of nature, not to force the child’s nature, to treat him as a full-fledged person. Thanks to the criticism of previous scholastic methods of education, thanks to the installation on the laws of nature and a detailed elaboration of the principles of “natural education” (as we see, in Rousseau, not only religion is “natural” - education is also “natural”), Rousseau was able to create a new direction of science - pedagogy and contributed a huge impact on many thinkers committed to it (on L.N. Tolstoy, I.V. Goethe, I. Pestalozzi, R. Rolland).
When we consider human upbringing from the point of view that was so important for the French enlighteners, namely, rational egoism, one cannot help but notice certain paradoxes that are found in almost everyone, but mainly in Helvetius. He seems to be moving in line with general ideas about selfishness and personal interest, but he brings his thoughts to paradoxical conclusions. First, he interprets self-interest as material gain. Secondly, Helvetius reduces all the phenomena of human life, all its events, to personal interest understood in this way. Thus, he turns out to be the founder of utilitarianism. Love and friendship, the desire for power and the principles of the social contract, even morality - everything is reduced by Helvetius to personal interest. So, we call honesty the habit of everyone to actions that are useful to him.
When I, say, cry about a dead friend, in reality I cry not about him, but about myself, because without him I will have no one to talk to about myself, to get help. Of course, one cannot agree with all of Helvetius’s utilitarian conclusions; one cannot reduce all a person’s feelings, all types of his activities to benefit or to the desire to gain benefit. Observance of moral commandments, for example, causes harm to the individual rather than brings benefit - morality has nothing to do with benefit. The relations of people in the sphere of artistic creativity also cannot be described in terms of utilitarianism. Similar objections were raised against Helvetius already in his time, not only from enemies, but also from friends. Thus, Diderot asked what benefit Helvetius himself pursued when he created the book “On Mind” in 1758 (where the concept of utilitarianism was first outlined): after all, it was immediately condemned to be burned, and the author had to renounce it three times, and even after This he was afraid of, that he would be forced (like La Mettrie) to emigrate from France. But Helvetius should have foreseen all this in advance, and yet he did what he did. Moreover, immediately after the tragedy, Helvetius began writing a new book, developing the ideas of the first. In this regard, Diderot notes that everything cannot be reduced only to physical pleasures and material gain, and that he personally is often ready to prefer the most severe attack of gout to the slightest contempt for himself.
And yet, one cannot help but admit that Helvetius was right on at least one issue - personal interest, and material interest, asserts itself in the sphere of material production, in the sphere of economics. Common sense forces us to recognize the interests of each participant here, and the lack of common sense, the requirement to abandon oneself and sacrifice oneself supposedly for the sake of the interests of the whole, entails strengthening the totalitarian aspirations of the state, as well as chaos in the economy. The justification of common sense in this area turns into the protection of the interests of the individual as an owner, and this is exactly what Helvetius was and still is accused of. Meanwhile, the new way of managing is based precisely on such an independent subject, guided by his own common sense and responsible for his decisions - the subject of property and law.
Over the past decades, we have become so accustomed to denying private property, so accustomed to justifying our actions by selflessness and enthusiasm, that we have almost lost common sense. Nevertheless, private property and private interest are necessary attributes of an industrial civilization, the content of which is not limited to class interactions alone.
Of course, one should not idealize the market relations that characterize this civilization. But the same market, expanding the boundaries of supply and demand, contributing to an increase in social wealth, actually creates the ground for the spiritual development of members of society, for the liberation of the individual from the clutches of unfreedom.
In this regard, it should be noted that the task of rethinking those concepts that were previously assessed only as negative is long overdue. Thus, it is necessary to understand private property not only as the property of the exploiter, but also as the property of a private person who freely disposes of it, freely decides what to do, and relies on his own sound judgment. It is impossible not to take into account that the complex relationship between the owners of the means of production and the owners of their labor force is currently being significantly transformed due to the fact that the increase in surplus value is increasingly occurring not through the appropriation of a share of someone else’s labor, but through an increase in labor productivity , development of computer tools, technical inventions, discoveries, etc. The strengthening of democratic tendencies also has an important influence here.
The problem of private property today requires special research; here we can only once again emphasize that, defending private interest, Helvetius defended the individual as an owner, as an equal participant in industrial production and a member of the “social contract, born and raised on the basis of democratic reforms. The question of the relationship between individual and public interests leads us to the question about reasonable egoism and the social contract.
In our society we can still hear the remnants of Soviet morality, in which there was no place for any egoism - neither reasonable nor all-consuming. At the same time, developed countries, in particular the United States, have built their entire economy and society on the principles of selfishness. If we turn to religion, selfishness is not welcomed in it, and behavioral psychology claims that any action performed by a person has selfish motives, as it is based on the survival instinct. People around them often scold a person who does what is best for him, calling him an egoist, but this is not a curse, and the world is not divided into black and white, just as there are no absolute egoists. For those who want to understand themselves and balance parts of their personality, we advise you to read our article on reasonable egoism.
Reasonable egoism: concept
First of all, let's define what distinguishes reasonable egoism from unreasonable one. The latter manifests itself in ignoring the needs and comfort of other people, focusing all a person’s actions and aspirations on satisfying his, often immediate, needs. Reasonable egoism also comes from the emotional and physiological needs of a person (“I want to leave work right now and go to bed”), but is balanced by reason, which distinguishes homo sapiens from creatures that act solely instinctively (“I’ll finish the project and take a day off tomorrow”). . As you can see, the need will be satisfied without compromising work.
The world is built on selfishness
There are hardly a dozen true altruists in the entire history of man. No, we in no way belittle the merits and merits of the many benefactors and heroes of our species, but, to be completely honest, altruistic actions also come from the desire to satisfy one’s ego. For example, a volunteer enjoys his work and increases his self-esteem (“I’m doing a good deed”). By helping a relative with money, you relieve your own concern for him, which is also partly a selfish motive. There is no need to deny this or try to change it, because it is not bad. Healthy egoism is inherent in every intelligent and developed person; it is the engine of progress. If you do not become a hostage to your desires and do not ignore the needs of others, this selfishness can be considered reasonable.
Lack of selfishness and self-improvement
People who have given up their desires and live for the sake of others (children, spouses, friends) are the other extreme, in which their own needs are pushed into the background, and this is unhealthy. You definitely won’t achieve it this way; this is why you need to understand where the golden mean is in the subtle issue of selfishness. Its complete absence indicates low self-esteem and lack of self-esteem, which is a huge area for work on oneself.
In the process, a person inevitably displays reasonable selfishness, which is combined with concern for others. For example, you are trying to become a better person and get away from the control of your parents or partner. At first, others may be offended by your newfound independence in decision-making, but eventually they will understand that you are becoming a better person, and improving the quality of your life will definitely have a positive impact on the people you love and love.
Loading...