Malleable Egoism
By Jake Lee
A person who spends their money on luxury goods is an egoist, because they only want to increase their personal pleasure.
A person who buys books and works out is an egoist, because they want to improve their lives and make themselves happier.
A person who spends their money on gifts for friends and family is also an egoist, because by giving a gift they expect to receive gifts in return, increasing their pleasure.
A person who donates their time and money to charities is an egoist, because they want to show off their wealth to others, thereby increasing their own pleasure.
A person who donates anonymously is still an egoist, because helping the community makes them happy, and they only want to do things that make them happy.
These conclusions are the basis of Psychological Egoism: the idea that all actions are motivated by self interest, no matter how “good” they seem. Whether it’s dedicating your life to ending world hunger or exploiting the work of others for personal gain, a psychological egoist considers both to be based on the initial (and only) moral compass—whatever makes us happy.
Psychological Egoism (referred to as “egoism” from now on) makes no claim about what people should do, but instead what people will do. Most moral systems make recommendations on what people “should” do—for example, Utilitarianism advocates that we should work to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the most people possible. However, this implies that the subject can make a choice on this matter. For egoists, there is only one “causer” for anything: self-interest.
This is what makes psychological egoism so contentious. There are very few philosophies that make claims about what people are. Utilitarians might say that people tend to care about the lives of others, but they would never claim that people are always thinking of maximizing the most happiness for everyone. Everyday occurrences of people buying unnecessary items (as opposed to giving to charity) is a clear example of someone intentionally being un-utilitarian. Similarly, virtue ethics, which claim that certain things are always good or always bad, makes no claims about what people always do, because people clearly lie, murder, and otherwise commit acts that are inherently bad.
Only egoists have ever made claims about what people really are, putting them in an incredibly unstable position. Because egoism must be true in every circumstance, psychological egoists must worm their way into every scenario. Even in the increasingly “moral” examples like those at the beginning of the article, egoists are forced to explain all actions as being expressions of self-interest.
Regardless, it is difficult to prove Psychological Egoism wrong. While theories of science are falsifiable (if the predicted orbit of the moon did not match the actual orbit, the theory being used must be wrong), psychological egoism is non-falsifiable. It doesn’t predict whether someone will help a drowning child or not, but either way it can prove itself right—the person saved the drowning child because of the praise they will get OR the person won’t save the child because they preferred keeping their clothes dry. One side seems more reasonable than the other, but neither falsifies the legitimacy of Psychological Egoism.
Therefore, this article will not try to prove psychological egoism wrong. It will simply show that it is too malleable of a psychological position for it to be of any use.
Take these two premises:
Psychological Egoism is true
People do not always act rationally (they do not make the most optimal decisions)
The first and second point show that it is possible for a psychological egoist to sacrifice their life for something they want. It would be irrational, since by ending one’s life all potential avenues for self-interest are shut down, but given that people have already done this in real life (soldiers jumping on top of mines, parents sacrificing themselves for their child, even individuals saving the lives of strangers at the expense of their own), psychological egoists would have to accept premise two in order to maintain premise one.
Now, even actions that harm an individual align with psychological egoism, so long as the individual wants it to happen. From here, any number of beliefs can be accepted. A Psychological Egoist can accept Utilitarianism or any other “should”-type morality, since despite the two systems being in direct conflict, the egoist simply needs to believe that acting out Utilitarian principles is in their self-interest. Psychological Egoism now means that anyone can act however they like, which is essentially the absence of a system.