Egoism is aphilosophy concerned with the role of theself, orego, as the motivation and goal of one's own action. Different theories of egoism encompass a range of disparate ideas and can generally be categorized intodescriptive ornormative forms.[1][2] That is, they may be interested in either describing that peopledo act inself-interest or prescribing that theyshould. Other definitions of egoism may instead emphasise action according to one'swill rather than one's self-interest, and furthermore posit that this is a truer sense of egoism.[3]
TheNew Catholic Encyclopedia states of egoism that it "incorporates in itself certain basic truths: it is natural for man to love himself; he should moreover do so, since each one is ultimately responsible for himself; pleasure, the development of one's potentialities, and the acquisition of power are normally desirable."[4] Themoral censure of self-interest is a common subject ofcritique in egoist philosophy, with such judgments being examined as means of control and the result of power relations. Egoism may also reject the idea that insight into one's internal motivation can arrive extrinsically, such as frompsychology orsociology,[1] though, for example, this is not present in thephilosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.
The descriptive variants of egoism are concerned with self-regard as a factual description of human motivation and, in its furthest application, that all human motivation stems from the desires and interest of the ego.[1][2] In these theories, action which is self-regarding may be simply termedegoistic.[5]
The position that peopletend to act in their own self-interest is called default egoism,[6] whereaspsychological egoism is the position thatall motivations are rooted in an ultimately self-servingpsyche. That is, in its strong form, that even seeminglyaltruistic actions are only disguised as such and are always self-serving. Its weaker form instead holds that, even if altruistic motivation is possible, the willed action necessarily becomes egoistic in serving one's ownwill.[2] In contrast to this and philosophical egoism, biological egoism (also called evolutionary egoism) describes motivations rooted solely in reproductive self-interest (i.e.reproductive fitness).[7][8] Furthermore,selfish gene theory holds that it is the self-interest ofgenetic information that conditions human behaviour.[9]
Theories which hold egoism to be normative stipulate that the ego ought to promote its own interests above other values. Where this ought is held to be a pragmatic judgment it is termedrational egoism and where it is held to be a moral judgment it is termedethical egoism.[1] TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that "ethical egoism might also apply to things other than acts, such as rules or character traits" but that such variants are uncommon.[2] Furthermore, conditional egoism is aconsequentialist form of ethical egoism which holds that egoism is morally right if it leads to morally acceptable ends.[1] John F. Welsh, in his workMax Stirner's Dialectical Egoism: A New Interpretation, coins the termdialectical egoism to describe an interpretation of the egoistphilosophy of Max Stirner as being fundamentallydialectical.[10][non-primary source needed]
Normative egoism, as in the case of Stirner, need not reject that some modes of behavior are to be valued above others—such as Stirner's affirmation that non-restriction and autonomy are to be most highly valued.[11] Contrary theories, however, may just as easily favour egoistic domination of others.[12]
Stirner'segoism argues that individuals are impossible to fully comprehend, as no understanding ofthe self can adequately describe the fullness of experience. Stirner has been broadly understood as containing traits of bothpsychological egoism andrational egoism. Unlike the self-interest described byAyn Rand, Stirner did not address individual self-interest, selfishness, or prescriptions for how one should act. He urged individuals to decide for themselves and fulfill their own egoism.[13]
Stirner believed that everyone was propelled by their own egoism and desires and that those who accepted this—as willing egoists—could freely live their individual desires, while those who did not—as unwilling egoists—will falsely believe they are fulfilling another cause while they are secretly fulfilling their own desires for happiness and security. The willing egoist would see that they could act freely, unbound from obedience to sacred but artificial truths like law, rights, morality, and religion. Power is the method of Stirner's egoism and the only justified method of gainingphilosophical property. Stirner did not believe in the one-track pursuit of greed, which as only one aspect of the ego would lead to being possessed by a cause other than the full ego. He did not believe innatural rights to property and encouraged insurrection against all forms of authority, including disrespect for property.[13]
I submit that egoism belongs to the essence of a noble soul, I mean the unalterable belief that to a being such as "we," other beings must naturally be in subjection, and have to sacrifice themselves. The noble soul accepts the fact of his egoism without question, and also without consciousness of harshness, constraint, or arbitrariness therein, but rather as something that may have its basis in the primary law of things:—if he sought a designation for it he would say: "It is justice itself." — Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche has been linked to forms of both descriptive and normative egoism.[14] Nietzsche, in attacking the widely held moral abhorrence for egoistic action, seeks to free higher human beings from their belief that this morality is good for them. He rejectsChristian andKantian ethics as merely the disguised egoism ofslave morality.[6][15]
The word "good" is from the startin no way necessarily tied up with "unegoistic" actions, as it is in the superstition of those genealogists of morality. Rather, that occurs for the first time with thecollapse of aristocratic value judgments, when this entire contrast between "egoistic" and "unegoistic" pressed itself ever more strongly into human awareness—it is, to use my own words, theinstinct of the herd which, through this contrast, finally gets its word (and itswords).[16] — Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals
In hisOn the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche traces the origins ofmaster–slave morality to fundamentally egoisticvalue judgments. In the aristocratic valuation, excellence and virtue come as a form of superiority over the common masses, which the priestly valuation, inressentiment of power, seeks to invert—where the powerless and pitiable become the moral ideal. This upholding of unegoistic actions is therefore seen as stemming from a desire to reject the superiority or excellency of others. He holds that all normative systems which operate in the role often associated withmorality favor the interests of some people, often, though not necessarily, at the expense of others.[15][17]
Nevertheless, Nietzsche also statesin the same book that there is no 'doer' of any acts, be they selfish or not:
...there is no "being" behind doing, effecting, becoming; "the doer" is merely a fiction added to the deed—the deed is everything.(§13) — Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals
Jonas Monte ofBrigham Young University argues that Nietzsche doubted if any 'I' existed in the first place, which the former defined as "a conscious Ego who commands mental states".[18]
In 1851, French philosopherAuguste Comte coined the termaltruism (French:altruisme; from Italian altrui, from Latin alteri'others') as anantonym for egoism.[29][30] In this sense, altruism defined Comte's position that all self-regard must be replaced with only the regard for others.[29]
WhileFriedrich Nietzsche does not view altruism as a suitable antonym for egoism,[31] Comte instead states that only two human motivations exist, egoistic and altruistic, and that the two cannot be mediated; that is, one must always predominate the other. For Comte, the total subordination of the self to altruism is a necessary condition to both social and personal benefit.[29] Nietzsche, rather than rejecting the practice of altruism, warns that despite there being neither much altruism nor equality in the world, there is almost universal endorsement of their value and, notoriously, even by those who are its worst enemies in practice.[15] Egoist philosophy commonly views the subordination of the self to altruism as either a form of domination that limits freedom, an unethical or irrational principle, or an extension of some egoistic root cause.[1]
In evolutionary theory,biological altruism is the observed occurrence of an organism acting to the benefit of others at the cost of its ownreproductive fitness. While biological egoism does grant that an organism may act to the benefit of others, it describes only such when in accordance with reproductive self-interest.Kin altruism andselfish gene theory are examples of this division.[8][9] On biological altruism, theStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: "Contrary to what is often thought, an evolutionary approach to human behaviour does not imply that humans are likely to be motivated by self-interest alone. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to benon-selfish, in the psychological sense."[9] This is a central topic within contemporary discourse of psychological egoism.[2]
Philosophies ofpersonal identity such asopen individualism have implications for egoism and altruism.Daniel Kolak argues that closed individualism, the idea that one's identity consists of a line stretching across time and that afuture self exists, is incoherent.[32] Kolak instead argues that personal identity is an illusion, and the "self" doesn't actually exist, similar to the idea ofanattā in Buddhist philosophy. Thus, it could be argued that egoism is incoherent, since there is no "self" in the first place. Similar arguments have been made byDerek Parfit in the bookReasons and Persons[33] with ideas such as theteletransportation paradox.
The history of egoist thought has often overlapped with that ofnihilism. For example, Max Stirner's rejection of absolutes and abstract concepts often places him among the first philosophical nihilists.[34] The popular description of Stirner as amoral nihilist, however, may fail to encapsulate certain subtleties of his ethical thought. TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, "Stirner is clearly committed to the non-nihilistic view that certain kinds of character and modes of behaviour (namely autonomous individuals and actions) are to be valued above all others. His conception of morality is, in this respect, a narrow one, and his rejection of the legitimacy of moral claims is not to be confused with a denial of the propriety of all normative or ethical judgement."[11] Stirner's nihilism may instead be understood ascosmic nihilism.[35] Likewise, both normative and descriptive theories of egoism further developed underRussian nihilism, shortly giving birth torational egoism. Nihilist philosophersDmitry Pisarev andNikolay Chernyshevsky were influential in this regard, compounding such forms of egoism withhard determinism.[3][25][19]
Max Stirner's philosophy strongly rejectsmodernity and is highly critical of the increasing dogmatism and oppressive social institutions that embody it. In order that it might be surpassed, egoist principles are upheld as a necessary advancement beyond the modern world.[11] TheStanford Encyclopedia states that Stirner's historical analyses serve to "undermine historical narratives which portray the modern development of humankind as the progressive realisation of freedom, but also to support an account of individuals in the modern world as increasingly oppressed".[11] This critique of humanist discourses especially has linked Stirner to more contemporarypoststructuralist thought.[11]
Egoists ironically can be read as moral and political egalitarians glorifying the dignity of each and every person to pursue life as they see fit. Mistakes in securing the proper means and appropriate ends will be made by individuals, but if they are morally responsible for their actions they not only will bear the consequences but also the opportunity for adapting and learning.[1]
In contrast with this however, such an ethic may not morally obligate against the egoistic exercise of power over others. On these grounds, Friedrich Nietzsche criticizes egalitarian morality and political projects as unconducive to the development of human excellence.[15]Max Stirner's own conception, theunion of egoists as detailed in his workThe Ego and Its Own, saw a proposed form of societal relations whereby limitations on egoistic action are rejected.[36] When posthumously adopted by theanarchist movement, this became the foundation foregoist anarchism.
Stirner's variant ofproperty theory is similarly dialectical, where the concept ofownership is only that personal distinction made between what is one's property and what is not. Consequentially, it is the exercise of control over property which constitutes the nonabstract possession of it.[36] In contrast to this,Ayn Rand incorporates capitalistproperty rights into her egoist theory.[26]
Egoist philosopherNikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevskii was the dominant intellectual figure behind the 1860–1917 revolutionary movement in Russia, which resulted in theassassination of Tsar Alexander II eight years before his death in 1889.[19][37]Dmitry Pisarev was a similarly radical influence within the movement, though he did not personally advocate political revolution.[25]
Egoist philosophy may be misrepresented as a principally revolutionary field of thought. However, neither Hobbesian nor Nietzschean theories of egoism approve of political revolution. Anarchism andrevolutionary socialism were also strongly rejected by Ayn Rand and her followers.
The philosophies of both Nietzsche and Stirner were heavily appropriated (or possibly expropriated) byfascist andproto-fascist ideologies. Nietzsche in particular has infamously been represented as a predecessor toNazism and a substantial academic effort was necessary to disassociate his ideas from their aforementioned appropriation.[12][38]
At first sight, Nazi totalitarianism may seem the opposite of Stirner's radical individualism. But fascism was above all an attempt to dissolve the social ties created by history and replace them by artificial bonds among individuals who were expected to render explicit obedience to the state on grounds of absolute egoism. Fascist education combined the tenets of asocial egoism and unquestioning conformism, the latter being the means by which the individual secured his own niche in the system. Stirner's philosophy has nothing to say against conformism, it only objects to the Ego being subordinated to any higher principle: the egoist is free to adjust to the world if it is clear he will better himself by doing so. His 'rebellion' may take the form of utter servility if it will further his interest; what he must not do is to be bound by 'general' values or myths of humanity. The totalitarian ideal of a barrack-like society from which all real, historical ties have been eliminated is perfectly consistent with Stirner's principles: the egoist, by his very nature, must be prepared to fight under any flag that suits his convenience.[12]
^abcdefgMoseley, Alexander."Egoism".Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
^abcdeShaver, Robert (2021)."Egoism". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.).Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
^abScanlan, James P. (1999). "The Case against Rational Egoism in Dostoevsky'sNotes from Underground".Journal of the History of Ideas.60 (3). University of Pennsylvania Press:549–567.doi:10.2307/3654018.JSTOR3654018.
^abNyberg, Svein Olav."The union of egoists"(PDF).Non Serviam.1. Oslo, Norway: Svein Olav Nyberg:13–14.OCLC47758413. Archived fromthe original(PDF) on December 7, 2010. RetrievedAugust 19, 2020.
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg)
