Ethical Egoism versus Ethical Altruism

[Icebreaker]

[SOLVED] Ethical Egoism versus Ethical Altruism

Ethical egoism states that we ought to do what is best for us, that it is not only our right, but our duty to look after our own interests first. Ethical altruism is the opposite, and states that we should look after the interests of others ahead of ours. If the society had to choose one of these two extremes, with which do you think we'd be better off?

 

[Bartholomew]

Irrelevant question; like asking if a computer should be designed with RAM or with a hard drive, if you had to choose one of the two extremes.

 

[Bartholomew]

More specifically, ethical altruism would lead to a more content society that would have a strong status quo, without a lot of room for "fringe elements." It would be majority overrules everything. Ethical egoism would lead to a lot of strife and change. They are not the only alternatives, however.

 

[sid_galt]

More specifically, ethical altruism would lead to a more content society that would have a strong status quo, without a lot of room for "fringe elements." It would be majority overrules everything. Ethical egoism would lead to a lot of strife and change.

And that is how?

They are not the only alternatives, however.

What are the others?

 

[Bartholomew]

Well, my personal favorite at the moment is the ethic of existential free will.


In ethical altruism, everyone does the greatest good for the greatest number. All revolutions cause a lot of harm to many people before they cause any good; hence, no revolutions in ethical altruism.

In ethical egoism there is no such restriction, and people would constantly try to start revolutions whenever they thought they could, in order to make things better for themselves.

 

[GeD]

Well, my personal favorite at the moment is the ethic of existential free will.


In ethical altruism, everyone does the greatest good for the greatest number. All revolutions cause a lot of harm to many people before they cause any good; hence, no revolutions in ethical altruism.

In ethical egoism there is no such restriction, and people would constantly try to start revolutions whenever they thought they could, in order to make things better for themselves.

Altruism is about acting for the interest of others. Doing the greatest good for the greatest number is utilitarianism. Also, one can argue that an advanced egoistic society would form social contracts in order to secure their interests universally. And a somehow peaceful altruistic society could be helping each other survive and secure their interests. Both will involve conflict - always existent when there is a will of finite power (ie. any finitely powerful human) and/or at least 2 differient wills exist (ie. there are at least 2 people who would eventually have conflicting desires).

What is the standard of reference of which we consider a society is better off? Since no objective standards exist (if there were one, we would have nothing to discuss), the question is dependent on what we choose to define as "better off".

 

[Bartholomew]

Utilitarianism is just a form of altruism which defines "good" as "happiness." Also, altruism is not about making the _society_ better off, but about making _people_ better off.

In ethical egoism or ethical altruism, there is no great reason to abide by contracts. Whenever it is expedient, members of such systems will ignore any contract. And no one will form contracts unless the other person is likely to agree to them; so contracts would not be used. People would simply work together when their goals coincided and not do so when their goals diverged or interfered.

 

[GeD]

Utilitarianism is just a form of altruism which defines "good" as "happiness." Also, altruism is not about making the _society_ better off, but about making _people_ better off.

In ethical egoism or ethical altruism, there is no great reason to abide by contracts. Whenever it is expedient, members of such systems will ignore any contract. And no one will form contracts unless the other person is likely to agree to them; so contracts would not be used. People would simply work together when their goals coincided and not do so when their goals diverged or interfered.

*sigh* re-read my post.

Also, don't falsely state that I wrote, "altruism is about making the society better off". You wrote that yourself.

 

[Bartholomew]

Also, don't falsely state that I wrote, "altruism is about making the society better off". You wrote that yourself.

No, you did:

What is the standard of reference of which we consider a society is better off? Since no objective standards exist (if there were one, we would have nothing to discuss), the question is dependent on what we choose to define as "better off".

 

[GeD]

What are you talking about?

The 2nd quote from me clearly does not state anything about altruism making society better off. You seriously need to rethink about what I wrote down.

 

[Bartholomew]

You're right, it doesn't state anything explicitly, but given the context what else did you intend it to mean?

 

[GeD]

I never intended to mean more than what the actual words say. You have only misinterpreted the context - regardless.

What is the standard of reference of which we consider a society is better off? Since no objective standards exist (if there were one, we would have nothing to discuss), the question is dependent on what we choose to define as "better off".

-The person I was addressing had no reference point of which to call a society is better off. Commonly held beliefs like economic prosperity, lack of wars might be considered an objective standard - but it is not. Some of those may just be created or picked up beliefs, or they might be instinctively avoided or sought after - but they is no "actual" standard for a better off country (except maybe power), they are just standards we ourselves have chosen to live with. Therefore, the result of whether egoism or altruism will make a society better off, is dependent on what we have chosen to be defined our standards of good and bad (better or worse off).

 

[Bartholomew]

Ah yes, I see you were referring back to Icebreaker's original question. However in the original question he made no reference to society; he said "we." Since you made your statement about society right after your statement about altruism, without any transition, I had assumed they were related. Now, care to continue the discussion?

 

[loseyourname]

Ethical egoism states that we ought to do what is best for us, that it is not only our right, but our duty to look after our own interests first. Ethical altruism is the opposite, and states that we should look after the interests of others ahead of ours. If the society had to choose one of these two extremes, with which do you think we'd be better off?

Why not take the middle ground? Balance your own needs and desires with the needs and desires of others. Of course, if push comes to shove, I always get first priority, but that's hardly systematic and more of a practical decision than an ethical decision.

 

[GeD]

Even if we assume the existence of moral phenomena *note assumption*, it still does not mean that your form of the middle ground is correct. We would still have to choose the right moral theory. The question is still in the front of the troubles: which moral system "should" actually be done? Stating your one form of the middle ground is vague at best, and does not account for the numerous actions we have to set a value for and how they compare with other values, etc.

However, if it is not a matter of ethics, then taking the middle ground is not forced on anyone, and is simply another choice you can take.

P.S. Your form of the middle ground seems very close to most egoists' view. Most people are not so willing to completely forego the interests of others (for my own peace of mind, the guilt from conscience as developed by indoctrination, etc), and will help others - but still primarily living to one's interests. And it has served many of the world for quite a while.

 

[GeD]

Ah yes, I see you were referring back to Icebreaker's original question. However in the original question he made no reference to society; he said "we." Since you made your statement about society right after your statement about altruism, without any transition, I had assumed they were related.

Yes, you are right society = us in this case.

To continue the discussion,

Although I tend to agree more with Nietzsche than existentialist "eX" philosophy, both are useful and 'truthful to our newer needs' theories that concern ourselves with focusing and understanding free will and individual choice (eX and nietz are not in the same boat, no matter how many philosophers want to believe them to be.)

Regardless, eX, in it's notions of personal freedom and the choice of his/her own actions is to be commended for not throwing away responsibility or consequence. But it has the deeply rooted problem that although people will look to themselves to make their own choices and decide mainly for the good of themselves and still think of those around them, there would be many choices made that would be destructive or chaotic to the people, society or even the country of which those people live in. As such, it can never be a workable style for people interested in living in a country that is not war-torn or anarchy-overrun. Since there are no "correct" or "moral" principles in eX, nihilistic tendencies in many people will obviously become rampant which involves anti-life responses: suicide, decline/degradation and especially anarchy (the notion that anything is permissible without morality or God).

Thus, there's this about eX: it may not be good for 'us' as a society or group (ie. herd). People who follow existentialism can be very dangerous for 'us' as a group or society (lack of unity, anarchy, constant gang wars and attempted revolutions, etc), even though it has some of the most liberating ideas about life & existence.

 

[Bartholomew]

I don't see existentialism as the abandonment of morality, but as the choice of one's own morality. If someone wants to be selfish and evil he is going to find ways to do that no matter what his belief system is. History has many examples. I see existentialism as the lifting of a burden; you need not be slave to any purpose, you are free to act. When you constrain your thoughts by a purpose, you can restrict yourself from seeing clearly what might be best. It's like a chess game. Choosing a single strategy and sticking to it no matter what is a weak, overly-rigid way to play. You must use your brain at every step; your goals may change at every turn. Of course, it is not exactly like a chess game because there is no winning or losing, but purposelessness sets the mind free. Like Sun Tzu said, become formless.

A defined purpose is always unnatural. When you decide you must structure your life around a particular purpose, you are acting against your nature.

 

[GeD]

I don't see existentialism as the abandonment of morality, but as the choice of one's own morality. If someone wants to be selfish and evil he is going to find ways to do that no matter what his belief system is. History has many examples. I see existentialism as the lifting of a burden; you need not be slave to any purpose, you are free to act. When you constrain your thoughts by a purpose, you can restrict yourself from seeing clearly what might be best. It's like a chess game. Choosing a single strategy and sticking to it no matter what is a weak, overly-rigid way to play. You must use your brain at every step; your goals may change at every turn. Of course, it is not exactly like a chess game because there is no winning or losing, but purposelessness sets the mind free. Like Sun Tzu said, become formless.

A defined purpose is always unnatural. When you decide you must structure your life around a particular purpose, you are acting against your nature.

A key idea in existentialism is that you choose what you decide to do, such that morality is no longer keeping your freedom down. You are right, it is about relieving the burden of any morality, and freedom to act, but that is why you must also understand that it believes that morality does not exist. You could in fact CHOOSE to believe in a morality - it is your freedom, but in reality, only our personal choices and actions are involved. Choosing your own morality would just be a choice, but what eX is trying to tell you is that even YOUR morality is not telling you what to do. You simply chose to follow certain rules of thinking. But one of the greatest impacts of eX is that it does away with morality, so that you can stop being limited by any moralities, even your own. It is about acting and choosing and being responsible for those consequence of said actions. eX is trying to show you that there are no moral rules, only ones that you have chosen to limit yourself by choosing a morality of your own, or choosing to follow someone else's morality.

 

[Bartholomew]

You could adopt a morality system under existentialism but it seems contrary to the spirit of it. But it doesn't mean you should try to be numb to others' misery; that would be a false imposition too.

 

[GeD]

You could adopt a morality system under existentialism but it seems contrary to the spirit of it. But it doesn't mean you should try to be numb to others' misery; that would be a false imposition too.

Yes, it is good that you finally see what existentialism was meant to be about. You can choose to have a morality, but that choice would involve freely choosing to limit your own freedom.
Existentialist philosophy NEVER imposes being numb to other people's misery. That is only a commonly held myth about existentialism. However, it would not be odd to find that existentialists would be more likely to be numb about people's misery. But note that the eX philosophy never advocates that - eX only advocates freedom of choice and definition.
NEVER take commonly held beliefs or "summaries" about certain philosophies at face value and conclude that they are absolutely truthful to the philosophy in question. If you do that, you forego listening to the actual words of the creator, and listen to the words of what could be a foolish translator or student - otherwise known as misinterpreters (I would know, I have misinterpreted many philosophies myself).

Just remember that while eX and some modern philosophies are truthful - they are dangerous, and have unknown consequences. One must be careful to keep in mind the real reasons one chooses to do philosophy in the first place. By following your instincts while keeping a logical, adaptable and imaginative mind, one will rarely be lead astray by lofty ideals and false assumptions.

 

[Bartholomew]

The only "original" source on existentialism that I have read is Albert Camus' _The Stranger_. The main character there seemed pretty numb to the suffering of others.

But the real way to interpret philosophy is not to get it from "creators" or from students; the real way is to find out what makes sense to you. The parts of existentialism that make sense to me are what I call existentialism; I believe in no philosophy except through my own judgment. Even though I have little serious information about historical existentialism, I fill in most of it my own and it makes sense to me. Philosophies evolve all the time. The originator of a philosophy has no intellectual authority over an equally intelligent person who holds approximately the same philosophy.

I don't think that philosophy has as much ability to alter basic human tendencies as you think it does. If someone has a natural tendency to be gregarious, or empathetic, then abandoning christianity and adopting existentialism will not much change that tendency.

 

[GeD]

But the real way to interpret philosophy is not to get it from "creators" or from students; the real way is to find out what makes sense to you.

You're thinking of the idea that HOW TO TAKE UP a philosophy depends on how much it makes sense to you. And indeed, you can choose any philosophy you like and modify it in anyway you like. However, INTERPRETING philosophy should not SOLELY be "what makes sense to you". Why? Because then you ignore the concept of research and study of such philosophies. When that happens, you start identifying things in certain philosophies, that the philosopher never in fact said or believed in. You will choose only the parts that make sense to you, and ignore the rest and add your own stuff. Then you will call this new philosophy the existentialism that you supposedly read. Call your new philosophy something else, and don't attribute newly created parts to the parent philosophy, unless it was actually there.

The parts of existentialism that make sense to me are what I call existentialism; I believe in no philosophy except through my own judgment. Even though I have little serious information about historical existentialism, I fill in most of it my own and it makes sense to me. Philosophies evolve all the time. The originator of a philosophy has no intellectual authority over an equally intelligent person who holds approximately the same philosophy.

No one is saying what you can or cannot do, or what you can or cannot believe. I am only telling you what existentialism has been widely interpreted as, and it's commonly held definition. Again, just like Philocrat has done - if you want to use the word existentialism in the context of public discussion on an open forum, it is best if you use the actual philosophy. If you want to use your own philosophy, then call it something else. Don't start saying that YOUR philosophy is existentialism, if it is not in fact that - you will only bring confusion. BTW, Albert Camus, like many who were labeled as existentialist, always denied that they were existentialists. Thus, the label itself is already slightly ragged, and adding your own philosophy into the mix will only make things worse.

The only "original" source on existentialism that I have read is Albert Camus' _The Stranger_. The main character there seemed pretty numb to the suffering of others.

Yes, but do story characters live? Does Albert Camus say that THAT is exactly how existentialists live? Did Albert Camus live while being numb to the suffering of others? In fact Camus did not. He fought for the co-dependence of Algeria with France, and was very active with the French Resistance Newspapers in WW2.
The stranger, like any other philosopher, is showing us a new view of certain aspects of life.

I don't think that philosophy has as much ability to alter basic human tendencies as you think it does. If someone has a natural tendency to be gregarious, or empathetic, then abandoning christianity and adopting existentialism will not much change that tendency.

Yes, if one does not CHOOSE to alter basic human tendencies. But even history is full of people who choose to ignore and suppress instinct, therefore, it is not impossible for philosophy to AFFECT someone's basic tendencies.
Indeed, philosophy does not in fact have any "ability" - only you do. But it is pathetic to see that the modern world sees philosophy as in the end worthless, and treats it as something that does not really affect us - even though they spend their time choosing and creating philosophies!
And to an existentialist - no doubt! He who is supposed to believe that we ourselves DEFINE our lives, and that we ourselves CHOOSE how philosophy affects our basic human tendencies.

I am saddened by your post. :(

 

[Bartholomew]

The history of philosophy is history, not philosophy.

The Catholocism of the year 1200 was quite a bit different from the Catholocism of today. Religions change as philosophies do. Furthermore, unless I am mistaken, there was no single originator of existentialism; nobody ever was the absolute authority on existentialism. There was no absolute consensus. And the existentialist movement is not frozen in time, completely done with; when I create my own interpretation, based on some existential ideas, I am a part of the existentialist movement. What I believe about existentialism has validity even in a historical context on that basis.

Existentialism, as I interpret it, means this: you do not need to be ruled by any particular purpose. Your actions are your choice. I believe that captures the essence of it.

Going farther, existentialism is a state of mind. It places responsibility for actions firmly on the shoulders of those who perform the actions. Nothing external to govern you or offer salvation. "Exercise your faculties as you shall."

 

[GeD]

The Catholocism of the year 1200 was quite a bit different from the Catholocism of today. Religions change as philosophies do. Furthermore, unless I am mistaken, there was no single originator of existentialism; nobody ever was the absolute authority on existentialism. There was no absolute consensus. And the existentialist movement is not frozen in time, completely done with; when I create my own interpretation, based on some existential ideas, I am a part of the existentialist movement. What I believe about existentialism has validity even in a historical context on that basis.

No one is doubting the changing definitions of existentialism, and that you may be part of the eX movement. Small details will change as well as most of its parts, but there is still a relatively well known existentialism. You yourself, have defined existentialism in a way that is close to the well known definition of eX.
But it doesn't excuse you from placing new things in existentialism that is not a part of it and then calling it as strictly existentialism. By doing that, anyone will just attribute anything to eX and immediately define it as eX - and we get confusion and perhaps misinterpretations of the actual philosophy. Just because you believe in the basic tenets of something, does not mean that anything else you add on top is "ok". Especially if some of those things contradict the basic tenets.
The reason I criticized your using existentialism as the name of your philosophy, is because you were adding things into it that are not part of the existentialist movement, not because you don't believe in its basic tenets.
So please stop feeling like you're being forced to conform to any definitions, or that I'm trying to make your beliefs wrong. Let's stop wasting our time on worthless discussions about the actual definition(s). Just make it clear that you are stating things that are your own version of existentialism, if it has not been commonly associated to eX before.

Existentialism, as I interpret it, means this: you do not need to be ruled by any particular purpose. Your actions are your choice. I believe that captures the essence of it.
Going farther, existentialism is a state of mind. It places responsibility for actions firmly on the shoulders of those who perform the actions. Nothing external to govern you or offer salvation. "Exercise your faculties as you shall."

No doubt, this is eX as it is usually figured out to be.

 

[Bartholomew]

There was no "real" existentialism, there was never anything "strictly" existentialism, there was never any "actual" philosophy. It was always the sum of many people's sometimes conflicting ideas, and still is.

By the way, what ideas of mine do you consider to be outside of the "relatively well known" doctrines?

 

[russ_watters]

In ethical altruism, everyone does the greatest good for the greatest number. All revolutions cause a lot of harm to many people before they cause any good; hence, no revolutions in ethical altruism.

That's a contradiction (or maybe just a conundrum): if a revolution causes 10,000 to die this year but saves 100,000 lives next year, wouldn't it be a good thing? Or is it both a good thing and a bad thing (bad now, good later)?

I think present and future consequences still would be taken into consideration, but the difficulty in deciding would lead to severe problems. If, for example, you acted ethical altruistically only in the precise present time, society would quickly disintegrate. There'd be no innoculations, for example (they hurt). But that's just an easy one: how could you convince a group of such people to form a line for dinner? They'd starve to death while trying to let each other go first!

In any case, I agree with your first response: its an impossible hypothetical. Forced to consider it, I'd say both socieies would disintegrate equally rapidly.

The real question should be short-term vs long-term. In the short term, the actions of egotistical and altruistic people are vastly different, but in the long-term the actions converge. Given enough time, egoism and altruism become equivalent.

 

[Bartholomew]

Well, they don't become equivalent if the altruist considers future generations. In ethical egoism there would never be any reason to prevent disasters that will fall beyond your natural lifetime; that includes things like pollution.

If you give altruists foresight, you'd have to think of a way to reconcile that with the limited intelligence of humans. A human altruist can't think 2000 generations ahead, yet if his altruism comes with foresight he would be unable to act without considering the effects on those people. Each person would just have to do his best, with limited intelligence.

It would limit progress, however. An inspired thinker would be unable to follow his inspiration for the joy of knowledge; at every step, he would have to consider whether people would be better off with him thinking or better off with him doing community work. And if other people think he's wasting his time, then he'd have to weigh the potential benefits of his thought against the emotional pain he is causing now to those other people.

Actually, both absolute moral altruism and absolute moral egoism would be impossible for any mortal to figure out.

 

[GeD]

There was no "real" existentialism, there was never anything "strictly" existentialism, there was never any "actual" philosophy. It was always the sum of many people's sometimes conflicting ideas, and still is.

By the way, what ideas of mine do you consider to be outside of the "relatively well known" doctrines?

I think my biggest criticism was the slight misinterpretation of existentialism. "I don't see existentialism as the abandonment of morality, but as the choice of one's own morality." eX is not so much just a choice of one's own morality, but an actual abandonment of morality as an absolute thing - ie. there is no longer any "ought to do", but that you free to choose and act (including the slight misinterpretation of eX and the choosing of one's own morality). Regardless, we do both agree that you responsible for whatever you do and that we make the choices for just that.
If you still want to believe that existentialism does not have a well known definition of what it means, continue what you do. I don't want to waste anymore of my time trying to convince you otherwise, because you want to turn discussions into relative definitions - where you can excuse anything.

 

[GeD]

Well, they don't become equivalent if the altruist considers future generations. In ethical egoism there would never be any reason to prevent disasters that will fall beyond your natural lifetime; that includes things like pollution.

Not necessarily, what if I wanted to keep my descendants alive? ie. "I want my legacy to continue, I want my influence of thought and action to echo for years to come - I want that immortality..." ;)

If you give altruists foresight, you'd have to think of a way to reconcile that with the limited intelligence of humans. A human altruist can't think 2000 generations ahead, yet if his altruism comes with foresight he would be unable to act without considering the effects on those people. Each person would just have to do his best, with limited intelligence.

Yes, altruism could also be limited to intentions being purely altruistic - that way even if the effects were not altruistic, it could still be characterized as such.

It would limit progress, however. An inspired thinker would be unable to follow his inspiration for the joy of knowledge; at every step, he would have to consider whether people would be better off with him thinking or better off with him doing community work. And if other people think he's wasting his time, then he'd have to weigh the potential benefits of his thought against the emotional pain he is causing now to those other people.

Indeed. That's a big problem of Altruism.

Actually, both absolute moral altruism and absolute moral egoism would be impossible for any mortal to figure out.

Yes, this has been known for decades if not centuries.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, they don't become equivalent if the altruist considers future generations. In ethical egoism there would never be any reason to prevent disasters that will fall beyond your natural lifetime; that includes things like pollution.

I disagree. It depends a little on your culture (its particularly true in eastern cultures), but in many societies, your legacy is the most important consideration in your life. This is particularly true for soldiers: they are willing to die for others and that is both an altruistic and egotistical reason. It isn't the case for today's suicide bombers, but the Kamakaze did what they did for honor alone. That is the ultimate combination of egotism and altruism.

 

[Bartholomew]

Well, if you include things that aren't directly related to the individual's needs in the goals of moral egoism, then you open the door for just about any moral code, depending on the social conditioning of what you should consider of benefit to you.


Existentialism is not the abandoning of any shoulds at all. It simply puts them in a relative context. In existentialism, you can decide that killing is wrong. There is no absolute value to that "wrong" ness, it just is how you think about a certain thing.

 

[GeD]

Existentialism is not the abandoning of any shoulds at all. It simply puts them in a relative context. In existentialism, you can decide that killing is wrong. There is no absolute value to that "wrong" ness, it just is how you think about a certain thing.

I don't see existentialism as the abandonment of morality, but as the choice of one's own morality.

I'm not even going to bother. If you want to play games, go ahead and continue to re-hash the same argument that has been addressed.

 

[Bartholomew]

This is not "playing a game." Yes, I was just re-stating my argument, but in a way I thought would make it clearer.

Basically, it is a question of which is more true: existentialism with the option to create value systems, or existentialism without the option of creating value systems. I hold that the former is more true, meaning more philosophically justified. Existentialism is in essence freeing oneself to express one's true nature. That may include making value systems. Saying "no value systems" seems tacked-on to me; it does not follow from the essence of existentialism.

Do you disagree, not on a historical basis, but on a philosophical basis?

 

[GeD]

This is not "playing a game." Yes, I was just re-stating my argument, but in a way I thought would make it clearer.

Basically, it is a question of which is more true: existentialism with the option to create value systems, or existentialism without the option of creating value systems. I hold that the former is more true, meaning more philosophically justified. Existentialism is in essence freeing oneself to express one's true nature. That may include making value systems. Saying "no value systems" seems tacked-on to me; it does not follow from the essence of existentialism.

Do you disagree, not on a historical basis, but on a philosophical basis?

I never disagreed with that at all. As I already said before, I agreed with your basic definition of existentialism. I already said that there is nothing in eX that says that you should have no value systems, nor did I say that you were not allowed to have a morality or that you could not choose a morality. I don't know why you continue to push that agenda, and then just re-hash the argument again and again that morality is not abandoned in eX. I've already explained to you why it is abandoned.
You speak of freedom to choose your own morality, yet you cannot totally commit to the fact that once you do that - you invalidate your own morality as being "morality" in the sense that it is not a system that says "what you ought to do". Your morality is now just a system of rules you live by.
Your choosing to have or follow a morality does not indicate that moral phenomena exist.

 

[Bartholomew]

Then we have been in total agreement all along. I never meant you could create your own absolute morality. Any value system you create to live your life is a morality.