Self Interest And Self-Interest

What if the right action doesn't benefit our interests in any way? Another objection against Mill's reply says that utilitarianism is too demanding because we should maximize overall happiness regardless of our interests. Mill replies to this saying that unless it's a great contribution to society, our self interests are weighted more. So only in very rare cases would we have to give up our self interests to make the choice right. I also agree with this reply because our self interests should definitely weigh more than the happiness of a few people, after all as humans we are very selfish in general. However if it is on a large-scale such as helping a big community in a great way without taking a lot of time, we need to consider what we are giving up and put our interests aside in order to contribute for the greater good as long as it is not too demanding.

Situations where self interest and public interest work against each other are known as “commons problems.” In the market model the chief source of conflict is individual’s perceived welfare vs. another’s perceived welfare. In the polis model the chief source of conflict is self interest vs. public interest, or “how to have both private benefits and collective benefits.” Stone notes “most actions in the market model do not have social consequences” but in the polis, commons problems “are everything.” It is rare in the polis that the costs and benefits of an action are entirely self-contained, affect only one or two individuals, or are limited to direct and immediate effects. Actions in the polis have unanticipated consequences, side effects, long-term effects, and effect many people. Stone states, “one major dilemma in the polis is how to get people to give weight to these broader consequences in their private calculus of choices, especially in an era when the dominant culture celebrates private consumption and personal gain.” That is a

“In the state of nature, Profit is the measure of Right”(Hobbes). This quote is talking about the nature people, and how they measure if something is “right” based on how profitable it is for them. As Thomas Hobbes did, I believe that people are generally selfish and will only try to benefit themselves as shown in the article “The Dying Girl No One Helped” where a girl was stabbed and no one helped her even though people saw her dying.

There are two basic kinds of egoism, there is ethical egoism and there is psychological egoism. These two different forms of egoism are different because ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that what is moral is to be done in self-interest. This is different from psychological egoism which states specifically that people will only act in their own self-interest. Ethical egoism is broken up into two forms. There is act egoism and Rule egoism. Act egoism says

“By purusing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more efficiently than when he really intends to(p477) ”. Humans are selfish by nature it's only natural to do what best fit their needs. when doing so it helps promote society even if said person is unconsciously benefiting the society they are still benefiting the world's growth.

A key factor in human nature is for people to be selfish and it is

Benjamin Cardozo has a strong argumentative essay against the idea of altruism. Cardozo’s central claim is if people allow altruism to be practiced in government then they will lose their individualism and their government would eventually collapse. To being his article Cardozo explains how the lower class will always dislike the upper class and that is the reason altruism has been a topic of discussion for centuries. Cardozo then proceeds to explain how the world is driven by self interest. The reason things get accomplished by people is for the reason of self interest. Cardozo explains that altruism would kill the idea of self interest and people would be less likely to be productive. Next Cardozo describes how altruism would make all people poor which would give the illusion that no one was actually poor. Cardozo then goes on to ask the question of how altruism

Altruism is when the actions of a person promote the best consequences for others, yet do not benefit the person who performed the act. Abruzzi and McGandy (2006) explain that Auguste Comte developed the term to support his ethical stance that humans are morally obliged to serve the interests of others,

     The descriptive claim made by Psychological Egoists is that humans, by nature, are motivated only by self-interest. Any act, no matter how altruistic it may seem on the outside is actually only a disguise for a selfish desire such as recognition, avoiding guilt, reward or sense of personal ‘goodness’ or morality. For example, Mother Teresa is just using the poor for her own long-term spiritual gain. Being a universal claim, it could falter with a single counterexample. And being that I believe this claim to be bunk I will tell you why!

Rachels (2003) described ethical egoism to having three arguments which makes it a valid ethical theory to abide by. One of the arguments explained how it is in one’s self-interest to not have help from others (Rachels, 2003). It is considered degrading to have someone offer his or her “charity” (Rachels, 2003, p.194) in attempts to make one’s life better. A person does not want to be regarded as incapable and in need of someone’s help. If everyone was to adapt an ethical egoist point of view, no one would be seen as inferior and everyone would be given an equal chance to succeed (Rachels, 2003). If strong affirmative action programs were employed to the NESA program everyone would undermine

In Wealth of Nations, self-interest seems to be synonymous with selfishness, and be the driving force of capitalism and the necessary ingredient for personal and economic wealth. This is, however, and partial and superficial view. Although in Wealth of Nations Smith does declare that human’s primary motive for most actions is self-love, all of their actions are still made within the moral parameters of society, which were created because of sympathy. A man, for example, will not pursue his self-interest at any cost to the people around him. He has to be ethical and fair in his interactions in order to be seen as morally and socially acceptable. In this way an understanding of, and cooperation with the sympathetic nature of society proves to further one’s self-interests. Therefore, to act morally and sympathetically is in fact an act out of self-interest.

Human beings place great value on the interests of both themselves and others. There is a certain innate desire to

Hugh (1898) further argues that people recognize that they are motivated, in most if not all cases by their need to advance their self-interest. However, when they reflect on this issue, they are mistaken by the urge to believe that the truth is the centrally of this. Actions that are meant to show concern for other people, such as helping the needy are self-satisfying to the actor, and they expect that they will their reputation in the society and obtain returned favors. A good example is that of political aspirant who might engage in a lot of philanthropic activities in his community to win the support of his constituents.

Ethical egoism requires that for an action to be moral it must maximize one's own self interest

The second argument discussed in this essay, laid out by Ayn Rand, argues that an action is rational only if it maximises self-interest (Moseley). Therefore, if we value rationality, we ought to act in our own self-interest. The reasoning follows that if we value the life of the individual, the agent should always be the one to benefit from their own actions, so the agent must act in their own true self-interest. The ability to act in one’s own true self-interest in the long-run requires a commitment to reason rather than feelings. Ethical Egoism is the moral theory any rational agent should follow as furthering one’s own interests is in accordance