#4        Psychological egoism is a theory that states that humans are selfish by nature and tend to act selfishly in all that they do.  Ethical egoism may be defined as a normative theory, or one that tells us how we ought to behave.  Namely, it tells us that we ought to behave in a manner that is ultimately self-interested. However, it cannot be considered a valid moral theory for a number of reasons.   

            Actions that can be construed as examples of psychological egoism follow from what the theory of ethical egoism teaches us.  Refutation of the theory of psychological egoism also reflects upon the invalidity of ethical egoism.  Therefore, I will proceed to first invalidate psychological egoism by use of common arguments. 

First of all, a scientific theory allows for the possibility of falsification.  According to the influential philosopher Karl Popper, “[a scientific theory] must be open to the possibility of disproof.”1 The argument that psychological egoism is based upon is no scientific theory due to the fact that the only answer backing up the defense of the theory when it comes to a number of human actions is a repetition of the original assumption.  Take for example the following:

Bill: "All human actions are always good."                                           Action      good

Ted: "Why?"                                                                                                        ?

Bill: "Human actions are never bad therefore they are always good."  Action      bad           good

Such an answer is tantamount to a 6 year old responding to the question of “Why?” with the familiar, “because”.  If answers such as these are arguments for the validity of the theory, then this theory will never allow itself to be disproved.  Therefore, both psychological and ethical egoism cannot be regarded as valid moral theories.

A second problem with psychological egoism, and ultimately ethical egoism, presents itself if we consider the fact that many acts that would be regarded as selfish in the eyes of the theory are at the very same time seen as extremely unselfish acts in our own eyes.  If a person were to risk life and limb to push another person out of the way of an oncoming train, how would the action be viewed in the eyes of an ethical egoist?  The ethical egoist will say that of course that is what the person did because that is what he ought to have done for peace of mind.  The action will be seen as an argument for ethical egoism in that the rescuer was looking out for number one.  If he had not pushed the person out of the way and the person was to come to some harm, it would have been gnawing at his mind.  In other words, he benefited his own mental state by performing this act.  What of the benefit of the person he saved?  This would just be regarded as a corollary to the benefit of the rescuer.  On the other hand, society in general would view it very differently.  The rescuer was extremely selfless to have done what he did.  The possibility that he did it to receive peace of mind from the action may never cross our thoughts.  Ironically, if such a thought were ever to cross our minds we would consider it to simply be a corollary to the greater good of the rescued person. 

Is doing something to benefit yourself always selfish?  I think not.  I think it depends on what it is that you have to gain from this “selfish” action.  Did the man push the person on the tracks out of the way because he wanted to have peace of mind or did he do it because the man owed him some money and the debt would be unpaid if he died?  The degree of selfishness of the first is a lot less than the latter.  The latter is selfish in the sense of the word that most of us would imagine.  So if we do deign to believe that all actions are indeed selfish, then at least some are a lot less so than others are.  I myself not being an ethical egoist would call the less selfish actions selfless. 

Another problem with ethical egoism is that it is contradictory.  Take for example the prisoners’ dilemma.  Two men are accused of a crime. If one confesses and the other does not, then the man who confessed will be released immediately and the one who did not will spend the next 20 years in jail.  If neither confesses, then both will be held for a few months and then both will be released.  If both confess, they will each be jailed for 15 years.  Since the prisoners cannot communicate with each other, each must assume that the other is naturally looking out for his own interest.  Based on a self-interested calculation, I would choose to confess because it carries a lighter weight (maximum of 15 years, minimum of 0) rather than not confess (maximum 20 years, minimum of a few months).  However, if each prisoner follows this truly egoistic path, it turns out that they will both end up worse than they would if they were not egoists!  Another situation where the theory does not hold up is when you are looking after yourself by stealing your colleague’s research.  You ought to steal research to advance yourself, but your colleague ought to protect her research from you.  The two of you are working against each other.  As Rosenstand says, “We can’t have a moral theory that says that one’s duty should be something that conflicts with someone else’s duty”.2 

            According to Brian Medlin, “ethical egoists want to promote their own self-interest but at the same time, if they are universal ethical egoists, they must also want everyone else to act to promote their own self-interest.”3 Here exists another inconsistency.  Certain situations will require me to want others to act against their own self-interest.  Using a typical “salesman” example, if I were CEO of an HMO and a personal ethical egoist, it would be in my best interest to have others pay to be covered by my insurance even though it may not be in their best interest.  They might be paying premiums they shouldn’t.  This is against the self-interest of the customer yet it is towards the CEO’s self interest.  How can any two people who believe in such a theory actually exist?  The answer is that they cannot and will not because this contradiction does not allow the theory to be called a theory. 

Yet another argument against ethical egoism is that if everybody were to look out after himself or herself, there would be such fierce competition that it would not be to the benefit of the individual.  Therefore, you might say that it would be best if everyone were to look out for the well being of others while keeping mum about your own intention to break this rule whenever it will benefit you.  This cannot be defined as a moral theory though because you must say you support a certain principle, but act according to another.  It contains a contradiction and therefore requires you to lie to stay true to its principle. 

The Grand Inquisitor section of the Dostoevsky work has no bearing on the following fabricated dialogue.  I have created a fictional situation in order to more clearly demonstrate the fallacy of ethical egoism.  The Grand Inquisitor is questioning an altruist who has helped feed and clothe those regarded by the Church as infidels.  In the dialogue below, the Grand Inquisitor takes the viewpoint of a hard universalistic ethical egoist in a confrontation with the altruistic soft universalist.  The altruist will attempt to sway the viewpoint of the Grand Inquisitor on the topic in question.  The two face each other in a poorly lighted cell, their shadows flickering on the pocked mortar wall. 

Grand Inquisitor: Who are you who have come here to lead astray my people?

Altruist:  Lead astray?  I advocate that all men should do what is best for others.  This ensures that all are happy and well taken care of. 

Grand Inquisitor: Well taken care of?  What happens when a believer helps feed and clothe a pagan?  They are now both going to go to hell!  How has helping another saved anyone?  One ought to watch out for his own self.  By helping a non-believer the Christian insures that he will burn in the afterlife!

Altruist:  How can you even know there is an afterlife? 

Grand Inquisitor: Fool!  Do you question the validity of the Church?  G*d has given the Church the duty to fill heaven with souls.  One way or another we accomplish this task.

Altruist:  Can you prove to me that the Church advocates that men must let each other suffer needlessly?

Grand Inquisitor: Man ought to do what is best for himself.  Save the extra grain for times of famine.  Feeding an infidel does nothing but prolong the earthly life of one who is eventually going to eternal damnation.

Altruist:  But once again you bring up an afterlife.  What proof do you have of such a place?

Grand Inquisitor: Fool!  Once again you question!  The pyre will burn very slowly for you tomorrow!

Altruist:  Okay, okay, let’s get off this subject then.  You obviously believe very strongly in an afterlife.  Why, I myself believe that one suffers no more once he has perished.  There is eternal peace afterwards.  We are similar in this regard.  However, let me ask you something.  Does not G*d advocate that men should be as brothers and help those in need? 

Grand Inquisitor: Yes but non-believers attack the purity of heaven; such brothers are to be struck down as devils advocates. 

Altruist: So you base your entire assumption that men ought to watch out for only their eternal souls on the basis that there is a heaven?  Okay, then lets assume there is such a place.  By helping non- believers, might not the Christians sway some non-believers to take up the sword and cross for your faith?  By helping others, Christians waywardly are actually converting these so-called non-believers.

Grand Inquisitor:  But good Christians ought to watch out for only their own eternal souls.  Why get involved if one can ensure going to heaven by staying out of others’ lives? 

Altruist: Ah, but here you have contradicted your earlier statement that G*d wants the Church to fill up heaven with good souls.  If this is what G*d wants, then he must allow for Christians to help non-Christians.  If a Christian converts one non-believer, he earns himself quite a bit of heavenly reward.  At the same time, that is one more person in heaven.  Therefore, you, who advocate that all men ought to protect only their own eternal souls, must now allow Christians to help infidels in need.  Inadvertently, they reap a large reward in the afterlife.

Grand Inquisitor: I see what you are saying.  By being selfish, a Christian may increase his chances of heavenly reward.

Altruist:  If you want to call it selfish, you may.  But the non-believer is basically being helped. 

Grand Inquisitor: Yes, indeed, by being so exceedingly selfish and egoistic, my people are

ensured heavenly reward in the afterlife.  Go now and do not come back.

            The above arguments and dialogue demonstrate why I believe that ethical egoism is not a valid moral theory.  Though expounded as an unfalsifiable theory, it turns out that ethical egoism is not a scientific theory at all.  It is at one extreme end of the spectrum of viewpoints we as humans may adopt for ourselves.