The concept of reasonable egoism does not fit well into ideas about public morality. For a long time it was believed that a person should put the interests of society above personal ones. Those who did not fit into these conditions were declared selfish and subjected to general censure. Psychology claims that a reasonable amount of selfishness should be present in everyone.
Definition
Reasonable egoism should be understood as a philosophical position that establishes for each individual the primacy of personal interests over the interests of other people and society as a whole.
The question arises: how does reasonable egoism differ from egoism in its direct sense? Proponents of rational egoism argue that an egoist thinks only of himself. While reasonable egoism is not profitable to neglect other individuals, and simply does not represent a selfish attitude towards everything, but only manifests itself as short-sightedness, and sometimes even as stupidity.
In other words, reasonable egoism can be called the ability to live by one’s own interests or opinions without contradicting the opinions of others.
Who are 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. In the dictionary, the word 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.
The complete 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.
A little history
Reasonable egoism begins to emerge in the ancient period, when Aristotle assigned it the role of one of the components of the problem of friendship.
Further, during the period of the French Enlightenment, Helvetius views rational egoism as the impossibility of coexistence of a meaningful balance between a person's self-centered passion and public goods.
This issue was studied in more detail by L. Feuerbach. In his opinion, human virtue is based on a sense of one’s own satisfaction from the satisfaction of another person.
The theory of rational egoism received in-depth study from Chernyshevsky. It was based on the interpretation of the individual's egoism as an expression of the usefulness of the person as a whole. Based on this, if corporate, private and universal interests collide, then the latter should prevail.
Notes[edit]
- Bayer (1990), p. 201; Gert (1998), p. 69; Shaver (2002), §3; Moseley (2006), §2.
- ↑
Shaver, Robert (2019), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Egoism",
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Spring 2021 edition), Metaphysics Research Laboratory, Stanford University, retrieved May 27, 2021. - Shaver, Robert (2019). "Egoism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Spring 2021 edition). Metaphysical Research Laboratory, Stanford University. - ^ abc Scanlan, James P. (1999). "The case against rational egoism in Dostoevsky's underground notes". Journal of the History of Ideas
.
University of Pennsylvania Press. 60
(3):549–567. - Moseley, Alexander (2006). "Egoism". In J. Fieser; B. Dowden (ed.). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
. - ↑
St. John Murphy, Sasha (2016).
"The debate about nihilism in Russian literature of the 1860s." Word
.
School of Slavic and East European Studies, University College London. 28
(2): 48–68. DOI: 10.14324/111.0954-6839.045. - Andrzej Walicki; Hilda Andrews-Rusecka (1979). A History of Russian Thought: From Enlightenment to Marxism. Stanford University Press. item 196. ISBN. 978-0-8047-1132-6.
- "SparkNotes: Notes from the Underground: Context". SparkNotes
. Retrieved May 30, 2015. - Sidgwick (1907)
- Sidgwick (1907), p. 1
- Sidgwick (1907), p. 95
- Sidgwick (1907), p. 508
- Smith (2006); Moseley (2006), §2a.
- ↑
Ayn Rand, "Faith and Strength: Disruptors of the Modern World,"
Philosophy: Who Needs It
, 1982, New American Library, p. 74. - D. Parfit (1984), parts II and III
Chernyshevsky's views
The philosopher and writer began his path with Hegel, telling everyone that he belonged only to him. Adhering to Hegelian philosophy and views, Chernyshevsky nevertheless rejects his conservatism. And having become acquainted with his works in the originals, he begins to reject his views and sees complete shortcomings in Hegelian philosophy:
- The creator of reality for Hegel was the absolute spirit and the absolute idea.
- Reason and idea were the driving forces of development.
- Hegel's conservatism and his commitment to the feudal-absolutist system of the country.
As a result, Chernyshevsky began to emphasize the duality of Hegel’s theory and criticize him as a philosopher. Science continued to develop, but Hegel’s philosophy for the writer became outdated and lost its meaning.
From Hegel to Feuerbach
Not satisfied with Hegelian philosophy, Chernyshevsky turned to the works of L. Feuerbach, which subsequently forced him to call the philosopher his teacher.
In his work “The Essence of Christianity,” Feuerbach argues that nature and human thinking exist separately from each other, and the supreme being created by religion and human fantasy is a reflection of the individual’s own essence. This theory greatly inspired Chernyshevsky, and he found in it what he was looking for.
And even while in exile, he wrote to his sons about the perfect philosophy of Feuerbach and that he remained his faithful follower.
Marx on morality
Marx did not create a moral theory at all. He did not set such a task for himself - not in the sense that he did not do it, but in the sense that such a task, from his point of view, is essentially false. Marx offers a critique of morality. He believes that morality is a transformed form of social consciousness; it does not reflect, does not express, but distorts and covers up the actual state of affairs.
The essence of Marx's position is that morality is unworthy of theory. After all, the theory of any object is at the same time a recognition of its necessity, its legal existence - this is precisely what K. Marx denies to morality.
Since being is a social practice, it is possible to transform it according to human standards. It is possible to create a moral being. There is no need for morality to be confined to the area of knowledge of internal motives, individual experience; there is no need to look for places somewhere other than the real world. The real world itself can be perfect, fundamentally friendly towards humans.
K. Marx embodied the idea of a moral remake of reality in the doctrine of communism. Here he faced the most difficult problem of the subjectivity of morality. It was as follows: how imperfect people can build a perfect society, or, in the words of K. Marx himself, how to educate the educator himself.
The essence of the theory of rational egoism
The theory of reasonable egoism in Chernyshevsky’s works was directed against religion, theological morality and idealism. According to the writer, an individual loves only himself. And it is self-love that motivates people to action.
Nikolai Gavrilovich in his works says that in the intentions of people there cannot be several different natures and the whole multitude of human desires to act comes from one nature, according to one law. The name of this law is reasonable egoism.
All human actions are based on the individual’s thoughts about his personal benefit and good. For example, a person’s sacrificing his own life for the sake of love or friendship, for the sake of any interests, can be considered reasonable egoism. Even in such an action there lies personal calculation and a flash of selfishness.
What is the theory of rational egoism according to Chernyshevsky? It is so that people’s personal interests do not diverge from public ones and do not contradict them, while benefiting others. These were the only principles the writer accepted and tried to convey to others.
The theory of reasonable egoism is briefly preached by Chernyshevsky as the theory of “new people.”
Ethics of duty and the categorical imperative. Kant.
Debt cannot be derived from personal experience, since the empirical subject is always selfish. Debt cannot be determined by collective experience, since a community of people always experiences a clash of opposing interests. Therefore, Kant considers the morally obligatory as an a priori property of human consciousness, as autonomous and not conditioned by anything. According to Kant, there is a certain moral law that has the self-evident property of imperativeness, i.e. obligatory for any person. Kant distinguishes two types of imperatives: hypothetical, i.e. requirements conditioned by some external considerations (goal, interest, usefulness) and categorical, which prescribe proper behavior regardless of any conditions. The former have nothing to do with morality; only categorical imperatives express what is due as such, an unchangeable and universal moral law. The first formulation of the categorical imperative reads: “Act only in accordance with such a maxim, guided by which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” The second formulation: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, as an end, and never treat it as a means. Thus, if a person’s duty is to recognize, apply moral standards to the specific situation in which he finds himself, and practically implement them, then the question is to what extent this task is fulfilled or to what extent a person is guilty of not fulfilling it is a question of personal responsibility. Consequently, responsibility is the correspondence of an individual’s moral activity to his duty, considered from the point of view of the individual’s capabilities.
The concept of the categorical imperative
“...don’t do to people what you don’t want for yourself, and then the state and family won’t feel hostile towards you.”
Categorical imperative (from Latin imperativus - imperative), a term introduced by I. Kant and denoting the fundamental law, or rule, of his ethics. It has two formulations: “... act only in accordance with such a maxim, guided by which you at the same time can wish for it to become a universal law” (Kant I., Soch., vol. 4, part 1, M., 1965, p. 260) and “...act in such a way that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, as an end and never treat it only as a means” (ibid., p. 270). The first formulation expresses the formal understanding of ethics characteristic of Kant, the second limits this formalism. According to Kant, the categorical imperative is a universal, generally binding principle that should guide all people, regardless of their origin, position, etc.
| Categorical imperative | The Rule of Using Your Mind |
| 1. Act in such a way that 2. Maxima 3. your moral act 4. could serve 5. the norm 6. universal legislation. | 1. (Think so that) 2. basis or rule, 3. from which something is taken, 4. could be done 5. universal principle 6. using your own mind. |
In these sentences, four types of logical objects mentioned in the judgment can be distinguished. This
- the subject himself;
- its maxims, foundations, rules;
- his actions, judgments;
- universal norms of behavior, laws.
Accordingly, in order to analyze these sentences, we need first of all to establish the exact meaning of all these terms, and first of all to clarify the concepts of law and maxim.
Morality, according to Kant, is the sphere of human freedom, whose will here is autonomous and determined by himself. To give this will a morally positive meaning, it is necessary to coordinate it with the highest moral law - the categorical imperative, since only good will is capable of making the right choice. The most famous formulation of the categorical imperative looks like this: “Do only! according to such a maxim, guided by which, you can at the same time wish that it should become a universal law.” The universality of moral requirements recorded in this case is undoubtedly a specific characteristic of morality, but it is very problematic as a criterion for distinguishing between good and evil in real life practice, since any subjective choice is possible if desired. presented as a general norm.
Basic concept of the theory
The theory of rational egoism evaluates the benefits of human relationships and the choice of the most profitable ones. From a theoretical point of view, the manifestation of selflessness, mercy and charity are absolutely meaningless. Only those manifestations of these qualities that lead to PR, profit, etc. have meaning.
Reasonable egoism is understood as the ability to find a middle ground between personal capabilities and the needs of others. Moreover, each individual proceeds solely from self-love. But having intelligence, a person understands that if he thinks only about himself, he will face a huge number of problems, wanting only to satisfy his personal needs. As a result, individuals come to personal limitations. But this is again done not out of love for others, but out of love for oneself. Therefore, in this case it is advisable to talk about reasonable egoism.
From a psychological point of view
From a psychological point of view, selfishness is inherent in all mentally healthy people as it is a consequence of the conservation instinct. Selfishness is not a bad or good assessment, but a character trait that can be developed to a greater or lesser extent. Among its manifestations are super-egoism (I am everything, the rest is zero), self-destruction egoism (I am nothing, look how insignificant I am) and healthy egoism (understanding one’s own and others’ needs and reconciling them with benefit for oneself). Anegoism can be attributed to the realm of fantasy or serious illness. There are no mentally healthy people who don’t take care of themselves at all. In a word, living well without reasonable selfishness is difficult. After all, the main advantage of a person with healthy egoism is the ability to solve his problems taking into account the interests of others and competently build a system of priorities.
Your egoism is completely healthy if you:
- defend your right to refuse something if you think it will harm you;
- understand that your goals will be achieved first, but others have the right to their interests;
- you know how to take actions in your own favor, trying not to harm others, and are able to compromise;
- have your own opinion and are not afraid to speak out, even when it differs from someone else’s;
- ready to defend yourself by any means if you or your loved ones are in danger;
- don’t be afraid to criticize someone, but don’t become rude;
- do not obey anyone, but do not seek to control others;
- respect your partner’s wishes, but don’t overstep yourself;
- you are not tormented by feelings of guilt after making a choice in your favor;
- love and respect yourself without demanding blind adoration from others.
