Egoism: Is man naturally selfish?

Welcome to my blog great steemians! Today i shall be looking at a controversial topic in philosophy which questions every action by man. Man in this sense is not gender based - male or female. Man as used here means female and male.

Credit

There is the view that people act not because they are expecting anything in return but simply because they feel it is what they must or ought to do (altruism). Whether any action qualified as selfish or selfless, we shall soon find out.

The term 'egoism' is derived from 'ego,' the Latin term for 'I' in English. Egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own action. Egoism has two variants, descriptive or normative. 

The descriptive variant conceives egoism as a factual description of human affairs. That is, people are motivated by their own interests and desires, and they cannot be described otherwise. 

The normative variant proposes that people should be so motivated, regardless of what presently motivates their behavior. source  

In philosophy, we have two theories of egoism and they are psychological and ethical egoism.

Psychological egoism asserts that people always act in their own interests, and, cannot but act in their own interests, even though they may disguise their motivation with references to helping others or doing their duty.

A good proponent (or supporter) of this theory is Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes argues that every action done by man is motivated with gain. We always anticipate a positive result at the end of every act since no man can rationally hurt/harm himself.

Credit

…no man giveth but with intention of good to himself, because gift is voluntary; and of all voluntary acts, the object is to every man his own good; of which, if men see they shall be frustrated, there will be no beginning of benevolence or trust, nor consequently of mutual help. Thomas Hobbes 

To support Hobbes claim, Jeremy Bentham, an ardent supporter of utilitarianism, maintains that nature has placed man under two sovereign masters which are pain and pleasure. He believes that these masters determine what we do in proportion to our actions.

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. Jeremy Bentham

To properly understand the psychological egoists view, let's look at the scenario below:

Suppose, for example, that Tolu saves James from drowning. What ultimately motivated Tolu to do this?  It would be odd to suggest that it’s ultimately Tolu's own benefit that she is seeking.  After all, she’s risking her own life in the process.  But for the psychological egoist, Tolu's apparently altruistic act is ultimately motivated by the goal to benefit herself, whether she is aware of this or not.  Tolu might have wanted to gain a good feeling from being a hero, or to avoid social reprimand that would follow had she not helped James, or something along these lines.

While we would have commended the altruistic behavior exhibited by Tolu, the psychological egoists believe she did that for her own selfish gain which is manifested by our applauds, gifts, heroic tags and many more. We are, according to them, naturally egoistic human beings!

Credit

The ethical psychologist on the other hand, maintains that man ought to pursue what is in his best interest. This view claims that pursuing our selfish interest is the best way to promote general good.

Herbert Spencer said: 

Ethics has to recognize the truth, recognized in unethical thought, that egoism comes before altruism. The acts required for continued self-preservation, including the enjoyments of benefits achieved by such arts, are the first requisites to universal welfare. Unless each duly cares for himself, his care for all others is ended in death, and if each thus dies there remain no others to be cared for. source 

Egoism is always in contrast with Altruism. Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. More precisely, an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent (self). 

The term "altruism" is derived from the Latin word "alter" meaning "other" and was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of Positivism, in order to describe his ethical doctrine, which he summed up in the phrase: "Live for others". In more general terms, Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. source

Having briefly explored the views of some scholars, let's look at the issue on ground properly! Do you think there is any act done by man without any interest? Do you think that we have altruistic tendencies? Is man truly and totally egoistic creature? Is there any human being that act solely by considering the impact of the action on the other person first before himself? Can we truly act at the expense of our own good by satisfying that of others? When we say an act is selfless act, what do we mean? Looking at the scenario i painted above, can you still say there is any act that is selfless?

Now you are thinking... Thinking about some actions you think can be regarded as altruistic! You are seriously philosophizing thinking you can debunk the claims above! Yeah! I got the feeling! I felt the same too until i couldn't come up with any!!! Yeah! You read it right! Or perhaps i did not rack my brain enough to come up with a good counter claim to dispute the egoists view.

Now, i will look at a single (perhaps controversial) argument to drive home my point. When preachers come to you to preach the Gospel to you. They tell you heaven is real and hell is real. They tell you to accept their faith. They tell you to go with them to their places of worship. They monitor your progress and do stuffs just to make sure you remain in the faith. The question: Is that not (or an) altruistic act? The answer is yours to give after the paragraph below!

When you look at it critically, the person who introduced you to his/her faith has in the proper sense 'won a soul'!! Hurray! This itself is the reward - won a soul! The person is considered a good member. If after listening to the preaching, you still did not accept the preacher's faith, it would be 'used' against you if in the end, you end up in hell! You would be reminded that someone preached the Gospel to you but you refused to accept it! The preacher once again, got a credit for reaching out to you!

Whichever way you want to look at it, you will constantly be faced with the reality of 'something in return for the doer of the action'. This gain or reward might not be visible at first glance but a more critical look will show you that 'hardly' is there any act without a motive. Whether the motive is for present or future gain is to be known after the consequence of the act!

The above exposition is purely philosophical and a theory about some of our actions. Please feel free to debunk the claims above especially the one by @smyle

Thanks for reading my work!

Resteem, Upvote and Comment!