Reasonable egoism - what is the theory of reasonable egoism?

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.

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.

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.

Criticism [edit]

Two objections to rational egoism are raised by the English philosopher Derek Parfit, who discusses the theory at length in Reasons and Men.

(1984). [15] First, from the point of view of a rational egoist, it is rational to contribute to a pension scheme now, even if it harms one's interests (spending the money now). But it is equally reasonable to maximize one's interests now, given that the reasons are not only relative to him, but to him as he is now (and not to his future self, which is said to be a "different" person) . Parfit also argues that since the connections between a person's present mental state and the mental state of a person's future self can be diminished, it is implausible to claim that a person should be indifferent between the present and future selves.

The "selfish gene" model of evolution proposes that human (and animal) behavior that appears altruistic is actually selfish when viewed from a gene/phenotype perspective. People help each other "unselfishly" because copies of their own genes exist in others, so behaviors that help the genes survive are selected, and altruistic drive decreases with genetic distance.

Examples of reasonable egoism

In everyday life, the behavior of a “reasonable egoist” is not always welcomed, and he is often declared simply an egoist. In our society, refusing a request is considered indecent, and from childhood a feeling of guilt is formed in the one who allowed himself such “liberty.” However, a competent refusal can become a clear example of correct behavior, which will not be superfluous to learn. Here are just some examples of reasonable selfishness from life.

1. Additional work needs to be done
   . Your boss is insisting that you stay late today to complete work that you did not do and for which you will not be paid. You can agree, canceling plans and ruining relationships with loved ones, but if you use the principle of reasonable selfishness, overcoming the feeling of fear and awkwardness, calmly explain to your boss that there is no way to reschedule (cancel) your plans. In most cases, your explanations will be understood and accepted.
2. My wife needs money for another new dress.
   In some families, it has become a tradition that the spouse demands money to buy a new dress, although the closet is full of clothes. Objections are strictly not accepted. She begins to accuse her husband of stinginess, lack of love, sheds tears, in fact, blackmails her husband. You can give in, but will this only increase love and gratitude on her part?

It is better to explain to the wife that the money has been set aside to buy a new engine for the car in which her husband takes her to work every day, and not only the good performance of the car, but also the health and life of the passengers depends on this purchase. At the same time, you should not pay attention to tears, screams and threats to go to your mother. Reasonable egoism should prevail in this situation.

An old friend once again asks to borrow money

. He promises to return them in a week, although it is known that he will give them back no earlier than six months later. It is inconvenient to refuse, but in this way you can deprive your child of the promised trip to the children's center. What's more important? Don’t shame or “educate” your friend - it’s useless, but explain that you can’t leave your child without rest, especially since he’s been looking forward to this trip for a long time.

The given examples reveal two positions of the relationship that require thorough correction. Relations between people are still built on the superiority of the demanding or asking and the uncomfortable state of the one from whom they are asking. Although the theory has existed for more than two hundred years, reasonable egoism is still difficult to take root in society, which is why situations prevail:

• the one who needs something insists, demands, blackmails, shouts, accuses of greed;
• the one who is addressed makes excuses, explains, listens to unpleasant words addressed to him, and experiences a feeling of guilt.

Reasonable and unreasonable egoism

After the concept of reasonable egoism was released, the concept of “egoism” began to be considered in two versions: reasonable and unreasonable. The first was discussed in detail in the theory of the Enlightenment, and the second is well known from life experience. Each of them gets along in a community of people, although the formation of reasonable egoism could bring more benefits not only to society as a whole, but also to individuals in particular. Unreasonable egoism is still more understandable and accepted in everyday life. At the same time, it is often cultivated and actively planted, especially by loving parents and grandparents.

The principle of reasonable egoism in business communication

It is known that business communication is built on its own rules, dictated by personal or corporate benefit. It provides profitable solutions to issues that allow you to get the greatest profit and establish long-term relationships with the most useful business partners. Such communication has its own ethical standards and principles, which the business community has formulated and identified five main ones:

• positivity;
• reasonable selfishness;
• predictability of actions;
• status differences;
• relevance.

In accordance with the issue under consideration, the principle of reasonable egoism attracts attention. It implies a respectful attitude towards the partner and his opinion, while clearly formulating and defending one’s own (or corporate) interests

The same principle can apply in the workplace of any employee: do your job without stopping others from doing theirs.

The world is built on selfishness

There are hardly a dozen true altruists in the entire history of man. No, we in no way belittle the merits and merits of the many benefactors and heroes of our species, but, to be completely honest, altruistic actions also come from the desire to satisfy one’s ego. For example, a volunteer enjoys his work and increases his self-esteem (“I’m doing a good deed”). By helping a relative with money, you relieve your own concern for him, which is also partly a selfish motive. There is no need to deny this or try to change it, because it is not bad. Healthy egoism is inherent in every intelligent and developed person; it is the engine of progress. If you do not become a hostage to your desires and do not ignore the needs of others, this selfishness can be considered reasonable.

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.

The concept of egocentrism and its difference from egoism

Egocentrism is understood as an extreme form of egoism. This is an attitude towards the world that is characterized by a focus solely on one’s self. In philosophy, this concept borders on solipsism - a position according to which a person recognizes his own individual consciousness as the only reality and denies objective reality. The definition of the universal encyclopedia Britannica gives a vivid example of the manifestation of egocentrism: a playing child closes his eyes and joyfully exclaims: “You don’t see me!”

Swiss psychologist and biologist Jean Piaget was one of the first to study egocentrism in children and observed their development, noting the period when they emerge from a state of egocentrism and come to understand that other people also have their own desires and needs. According to Piaget's research, the infant at the sensorimotor stage is egocentric. In the preoperational stage (from two to seven years old), children begin to understand that there can be alternative views, but they do not yet realize that there can be different attitudes towards the same object. Children overcome egocentrism when they reach the operational stage and begin to understand other people's points of view. Piaget's theory of cognitive development implies that by the age of seven, egocentrism is practically not manifested.

Signs of an egocentric

• Unable to put yourself in another person's shoes
• Places himself at the center of all events
• Not interested in the world around him
• Sees other people as minor characters
• Follows the rule “to achieve at any cost”
• Does not notice the inconvenience caused to him because he does not think about others
• Is not aware of the impact of his behavior on other people
• Can read gestures and emotions, but is not interested in the inner world of other people
• Most often does not feel guilty
• Looks for the cause of the problem in the outside world and does not admit his own guilt

“Egocentrism differs from egoism, which is primarily a moral value orientation of an individual and manifests itself in selfish behavior contrary to the interests of other people. An egoist may be aware of the goals and values ​​of others, but deliberately neglects them; thus, he may not be self-centered.

An egocentric person can behave like an egoist, but not necessarily because he opposes his interests to the interests of another, but because he does not perceive someone else’s position, being entirely concentrated on his own interests.”

Popular psychological encyclopedia. Sergey Stepanov

Is selfishness good or bad?

Nature has designed it in such a way that all living beings are primarily guided by instincts aimed at survival and the preservation of the species,
and this rule is no exception.
Both animals and people instinctively strive to fulfill their own needs and are ready to compete with representatives of their own and other species for the right to possess resources. Therefore, selfishness is an innate character trait of a person,
since it is precisely this that allows one to realize the needs associated with ensuring life and establishing one’s own status in society.

However, people are a social species, and in isolation from society, the development of a person’s personality is impossible. It is precisely in order to make the living of each individual in society comfortable that so-called social contracts were formed - unwritten rules and norms governing the interaction of members of society with each other. Altruism, mutual assistance, guardianship and protection of the weakest and resolution of conflicts through compromise are important components of the social contract

in human society, since they provide a comfortable and safe life for each individual member of society.

Based on the above, it becomes obvious that selfish behavior is the norm for a person, however, every member of society must restrain his selfish impulses in order

And the most important thing for every person is to be able to find a balance between selfishness and altruism so as to be able to realize their needs and goals and at the same time not infringe on others

Distortions in behavior both towards selfishness and altruism are always fraught with negative consequences for the individual

. A person who always adheres to a selfish line of behavior and at the same time infringes on the interests of others, sooner or later risks becoming an outcast in society and losing all his friends and relatives, since no one will tolerate a notorious egoist around for long. And people who are always ready to give up their own interests for the sake of others can very quickly find themselves, as their kindness will begin to be taken advantage of without giving anything in return. A striking example of what excessive altruism leads to are women in relationships with tyrants, alcoholics and drug addicts. These women spend their time and vitality trying to please their partner and save him, but in the end they only have a crippled psyche and undermined physical health.

It is obvious that selfishness is a necessary character trait for every person, since it is it that allows people to realize their needs,

achieve your goals and find your happiness. But still, each person must behave in such a way that, while satisfying his desires, he does not infringe on other members of society. And it is precisely this line of behavior that modern psychologists call reasonable egoism.

The problem of selfishness

Most selfish individuals do not allow anyone into their world, they experience all their inner impulses alone, and do not need outside help, but among them there are those who really need the presence of a loved one who will help, hear and understand. But it also happens that they simply need the physical presence of a person without any emotional impulses. For such people, the absence of others in their lives is tantamount to a state of crisis. But they won’t make acquaintances with just anyone, much less let them into their personal space. It is not easy for them to learn to trust others; they must see for themselves, understand from their own experience what a person is like, and after such a strict test they decide to trust.

The problem of selfishness lies in the peculiarities of personality formation, the circumstances of its growing up, and the correctness of upbringing. At certain life stages of growing up, through the influence of unfavorable conditions, a person develops egoistic character traits. Thus, manifestations of selfishness are possible at any age.

Selfishness in relationships is a big problem because there are two people in a couple and they are obligated to love each other, not one the other, and the other himself. Often behind such over-confidence there was self-doubt, and in order to overcome it they had to work a lot, and as a result of such work, they gave too much effort, and, obeying the temptation, overdid it, and they liked this new sensation. And when such a person has just found a mate, or returned to his current relationship as a completely different person, then problems begin. For a selfish person, everything seems to be normal, even better than it was, because now she knows her worth, which means she can demand twice as much. She does not understand that such behavior interferes with building a relationship, because all the attention and care is given to only one person. A couple is just that: if there are two people in it, then the initiative should come from everyone.

Selfishness in relationships breaks up families and people's destinies. But if a person values ​​relationships, he will work on himself and will be able to change.

Selfishness is considered a problem in the sense that a person who spends vital energy on himself often does not notice how he poisons the lives of others, without paying attention to their needs, he will never be able to feel the joy of a selfless act for others.

Egoism and altruism. If we compare altruism and egoism, we can identify a common idea in them - the value of a person. It’s just that in altruism the needs of others are respected and selfless actions are done for their benefit, but in egoism a person respects himself and realizes personal needs.

The feeling of selfishness can alternate with altruism, depending on what lessons life has brought. A person could once do a selfless good deed, and in return receive misunderstanding and condemnation of his action. Then a defense mechanism turns on in him and from that moment on he will begin to do good deeds only for himself. There is also his mistake here, since you cannot generalize all cases, there are sincere grateful people in the world who will appreciate the action, you cannot be disappointed in people so quickly. There is a problem in society associated with the rejection of either selfish selfish actions or sacrificial altruistic ones. Selfish actions are condemned for catering to the needs of one person, and they try to find a catch in altruism.

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.

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.

Reasonable egoism: concept

First of all, let's define what distinguishes reasonable egoism from unreasonable one. The latter manifests itself in ignoring the needs and comfort of other people, focusing all a person’s actions and aspirations on satisfying his, often immediate, needs. Reasonable egoism also comes from the emotional and physiological needs of a person (“I want to leave work right now and go to bed”), but is balanced by reason, which distinguishes homo sapiens from creatures that act solely instinctively (“I’ll finish the project and take a day off tomorrow”). . As you can see, the need will be satisfied without compromising work.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What is reasonable egoism

According to psychologists, reasonable egoism is a behavior strategy in which a person makes active efforts to self-development and achieve his goals without infringing on the interests of others and without coming into conflict with society. And the main differences between reasonable selfishness and excessive one are the following:

Reasonable egoism is the ideal balance between innate egoism and altruism acquired in the process of socialization. And more and more psychologists recommend that their clients develop precisely this strategy of behavior, and not deny their own selfishness. According to experts, reasonable egoism is precisely that form of thinking and behavior that allows a person to live in harmony with himself and the world around him, realize his goals and find his place in society.

Reasonable selfishness

Reasonable selfishness

- a term often used in recent years to denote a philosophical and ethical position that establishes for each subject the fundamental priority of the subject’s personal interests over any other interests, be they public interests or the interests of other subjects.

The need for a separate term is apparently due to the negative semantic connotation traditionally associated with the term “egoism”. If under the egoist

(without the qualifying word “reasonable”) is often understood as a person who
thinks only about himself
and/or
neglects the interests of other people
, then supporters of “
reasonable egoism
” usually argue that such neglect, for a number of reasons, is simply
unprofitable
for the neglecter and, therefore, represents is not selfishness (in the form of a priority of personal interests over any others), but only a manifestation of short-sightedness or even stupidity.
Reasonable egoism in everyday understanding is the ability to live in one’s own interests
without contradicting the interests of others.

The concept of reasonable egoism is closely related to the concept of “individualism”.

Notes[edit]

1. Bayer (1990), p. 201; Gert (1998), p. 69; Shaver (2002), §3; Moseley (2006), §2.
2. ↑
   Shaver, Robert (2019), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Egoism",
   Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
   (Spring 2022 edition), Metaphysics Research Laboratory, Stanford University, retrieved May 27, 2022.
3. Shaver, Robert (2019). "Egoism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
   (Spring 2022 edition). Metaphysical Research Laboratory, Stanford University.
4. ^ 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.
5. Moseley, Alexander (2006). "Egoism". In J. Fieser; B. Dowden (ed.). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
   .
6. ↑
   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.
7. 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.
8. "SparkNotes: Notes from the Underground: Context". SparkNotes
   . Retrieved May 30, 2015.
9. Sidgwick (1907)
10. Sidgwick (1907), p. 1
11. Sidgwick (1907), p. 95
12. Sidgwick (1907), p. 508
13. Smith (2006); Moseley (2006), §2a.
14. ↑
    Ayn Rand, "Faith and Strength: Disruptors of the Modern World,"
    Philosophy: Who Needs It
    , 1982, New American Library, p. 74.
15. D. Parfit (1984), parts II and III

Egoism and egocentrism difference

There is also a concept similar to egoism - egocentrism. There is a difference in definition between the categories of egoism and egocentrism.

Selfishness is a personality trait, a part of its character that manifests itself in behavior, and egocentrism is a way of thinking. An egocentric person sincerely believes in the existence of only one correct opinion, and that is his own. Only his idea has the right to exist, and he establishes the order, and he will not listen to anyone else’s reasoning. The center of the universe is closed on the egocentric, he is the navel of the earth, he sees only himself at the head of the world, he was born with this feeling and it can pass or more or less weaken at the age of 8-12. If an adult behaves like the ego did in the past, something happened that prevented the person from growing up.

Selfishness examples from life. Selfish people have too strong a desire to have everything, even what they will never need, but others have

Such an overly focused attention on one’s own desires and their satisfaction, even at the most inopportune moment, is characteristic of small children who do not yet know what is good and what is bad, and what can be done right away, and what can cause a negative reaction in society. But the terrible truth is that such manifestations of selfishness are inherent in both children and adults who have physically long since passed that age, but have not matured psychologically

They do not have a feeling of satiety, and not only in food, but in all things, they are always not enough, always lacking. They don't want a big piece of cake, they want the whole cake.

Human egoism has childish traits, but the brain of such individuals works better than it should. They always need to look for ways to get more. It is necessary to come up with cunning tricks to get what you want. Their mind is constantly tense, it is aimed at calculating ways to achieve their own benefit.

It is precisely because of this that human egoism is considered the trigger for progress. A person is in motion, which means he develops, invents, creates and achieves. It is this feature of egoism that gives it a positive connotation. If from childhood you direct egoism in the right direction in a certain way, use this energy as motivation for achievement and at the same time teach the child moral and ethical principles, according to which it is necessary, but respecting the needs of other people, you can raise a very purposeful personality.

Chapter 2. Reasonable egoism (I ask you not to read the unreasonable ones).

And if, perhaps, the harsh hour passes and the muse tenderly hands over the laurel crown, thanks to fate, thanks to the mind, the genius will finally win the victory of all the wondrous joy and glory of the raptures of everything - do you hear?
- achieve it alone! E. Rostand "Cyrano de Bergerac"

I do not intend to build in order to serve and help anyone. I don't intend to build in order to have clients. I intend to have clients in order to build... Those who need me will come themselves... Never ask anyone. Especially about your work. Don't you know what you want? How can you live without knowing this?

Ayn Rand "The Fountainhead"

In the previous chapter, I lightly touched upon the topic of selfishness, and I did this for a reason. As will be clear from the following discussion, reasonable egoism is closely related to the principle of moderation in the context of a happy life. But first things first.

The theory of rational egoism was formed in parallel with capitalist relations. The greatest contribution to it was made by French thinkers of the 18th century. They argued that the basis of morality is properly understood self-interest - the so-called “reasonable self-love.” From their point of view, reasonable egoism represented the “golden mean” between altruism and unreasonable egoism. The latter represents the satisfaction of momentary desires without taking into account the consequences, violation of the rights of surrounding people in favor of one’s interests, and therefore leads to major troubles in the long term. From the point of view of theorists of reasonable egoism, people should learn this phenomenon, overcoming inadequate prohibitions and restrictions introduced from childhood, and use their common sense more widely.

In fact, the theory of rational egoism forms a new type of morality (instead of the outdated dualistic morality of absolute Good and Evil), in which the so-called “moral unselfishness” and “altruism” are devalued - they are just free cheese at the entrance to the mousetrap. An “altruist” who does a favor makes the other person feel obligated to him and thereby gains room for future manipulation. Therefore, a reasonable egoist refuses such gifts in order not to become dependent, or does not consider himself obligated to pay in any way in return for a “selflessly” given gift or service rendered. By this, by the way, he can cure a manipulator - an altruist - of his bad habit.

Of course, reasonable egoism is better than the hypocritical double morality from which the citizens of the USSR suffered under socialism. This concept is close to individualism and allows a gifted person to better express himself. their own egoism (as well as personality and mind), so all sorts of “collective-patriotic” events remain unclaimed and attract only “lazy minds” who expect a strong government to solve their problems.

The difference between gifted individualists (primary people) and irresponsible collectivists (secondary people) is perfectly shown in the novels of the famous American writer Ayn Rand called “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged”. A gifted person, from the author’s point of view, wins personal happiness in the process of creativity, and he creates, first of all , for his own sake! For your own development! Another thing is that usually there is benefit to others, but this, as they say, is a “by-product.” And they instilled in us at school: a genius creates for people, like a cat...

You may ask why I am writing this book. Guess three times... That's right, for your own development, desire to better understand this topic and increase self-esteem. When there are so many smart thoughts in your head, it would be a crime not to show on paper the power of your hemispheres...

However, let’s return to the brilliant emigrant from Russia Ayn Rand, whose novels rank second after the Bible in their influence on American society. A reasonable egoist, from the writer’s point of view, finds a goal in himself. He lives in his own head, not allowing other people to make himself a victim, but also not turning others into victims. The open proclamation and substantiation of such ideas in the works of Ayn Rand makes them considered more philosophical than artistic works.

As we see, the emphasis is on the person’s own mind and common sense, who, making conscious choices in everyday life, bears responsibility for them. This is another type of morality, different from Christian, the importance of which was emphasized by the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius many years before our era. For him, as for Socrates, Virtue was merged with Knowledge and could not be realized outside of it. Unlike many modern “moral” hypocrites, Confucius always lived by his commandments. By the way, it was not difficult for him - after all, he had a mind! As the philosopher argued, “religion must be consistent with human reason and subject to the test of common sense. What cannot be verified by reason cannot be the subject of true and firm faith, and therefore cannot guide actions.” This is the kind of “religion” I am ready to believe in with pleasure!

From school we remember the novel “What is to be done?” The reasonable egoism of the “new people” in this work by Chernyshevsky is expressed as follows: the thoughts of the main characters are directed towards themselves, but at the same time are subordinated to the ideals of goodness and happiness. Their personal interest coincides with the universal one. The unreasonable egoism of the other heroes of the novel leads to idleness and excesses.

For me personally, the painful point here is how much the interest of a gifted and rationally selfish individual can coincide with the collective. After all, talented people are often forced to confront the lazy and inert masses. Ortega y Gasset, a modern writer and philosopher, very vividly described this phenomenon: “Ordinary minds, not deceived about their own mediocrity, fearlessly assert their right to it... The mass crushes the dissimilar, the remarkable and the best. The masses are those who float with the flow and are devoid of guidelines. Therefore, the mass man does not create...”

Remember, we already said that “unreasonable people” tend to give priority to material consumption and empty pleasures? Ortega y Gasset also notes two main features of the “mass man”: the constant growth of life’s demands and innate ingratitude, which generally paints the image of a spoiled Child living in emotions and illusions. After all, no one even tries to point out to this Child the “second-classness” of his life, and even of himself! “The longer you exist,” the Spanish philosopher writes bitterly, “the more painful is the conviction that the majority is inaccessible to any effort other than a forced reaction to external necessity.”

In my opinion, the main merit of Ortega y Gasset is that he showed the main dangers of the unreasonable egoism of the crowd. Since the “mass” person has little intelligence, his egoism cannot be reasonable by definition! It is no coincidence that Ortega y Gasset notes that the crowd, left to its own devices, destroys the foundations of its own existence.

A reasonable egoist never behaves like this: he thinks about his long-term benefit, and not about satisfying immediate needs. While egocentrism - the extreme degree of selfishness - is literally life-threatening. After all, an egocentric person is not able to feel other people, to predict their actions, and therefore to rationally compare his actions with the actions of others. It is no coincidence that it is said: “Freedom is a person’s ability to live within the conditions of his own self-limitations .” Where will a fool get them from? Therefore, in order to keep fools in check, there is religion with its morality and the state with its security forces. Both of these institutions emphasize emotions (carrots and sticks) rather than reason. I don’t presume to judge to what extent the “mass people” could be re-educated if the emphasis shifted to the development of rational, logical thinking. Therefore, perhaps, the hat is according to Senka, which, however, is in no way suitable for gifted, intelligent egoists. They have their own headdresses and, most importantly, different contents of the head.

So egoism allows a capable person to resist the inert crowd, and reason allows the matter not to lead to a conflict with it, remaining a law-abiding citizen and realizing oneself in the sphere of individual creativity.

By the way, in previous books I wrote that unique abilities, since he was “not accidentally” born. And he encouraged those around him (including cadets and clients) to seek and realize their uniqueness, finding the meaning of life in this. Now, I am more often inclined to the point of view that “the people are nature’s bypass maneuver to obtain six or seven brilliant individuals.” At the same time, I treat every representative of the “people” with respect, since all people have the same rights, although they have completely different levels of abilities. So if you develop individuality, then at the same time you should develop your brain, because “where there is not enough intelligence, there is not enough everything.” But, as the reader understands, achieving one’s own happiness without a bit of selfishness and individualism is impossible.

The “reasonable egoist” is guided not by traditional morality with its frozen concepts of Good and Evil, but by situational ethics, in which each case is considered in an individual, unique way. And this is natural for an intelligent person: he won’t stand on a deserted street at night, waiting for the red traffic light to change to green! A reasonable egoist understands the relativity of any rules - after all, even parallel lines do not intersect only as long as they go along a flat surface. It goes without saying that any symbolism, including state symbols, is just symbolism and nothing more. This does not mean that such a subject has contempt for various kinds of official symbols - he simply does not think about them. At the same time, he understands that a certain ordering of life thanks to the state is still more favorable for him than wild chaos. The ideal social system for him would be meritocracy - the rule of the most worthy and capable people. Society should be governed by smart and prepared people, not arrogant and loud-mouthed people. To do this, you need to vote for smart people with your “head” and not with your “heart”. Then the consumer society will be replaced by a knowledge society, in which intelligent and gifted egoists will be the norm, not the exception. And meritocrats will replace bureaucrats. Until this happens, people will witness periodic invasions of power by “barbarians” from the people, who, in the words of Russian Minister I. Kudrin, “either remain silent or stage a riot, senseless and merciless.”

By the way, the modern “mass man” has already got his hands on the fruits of progress, many of which were “grown” for him by individual geniuses. And the only thing that a representative of the crowd will never be able to adopt from a genius is the work of his brain, his mind. Now it’s clear why gifted people are not loved, and gifted egoists are doubly disliked. They have a treasure in their head, and they know how to use it - but only for themselves. While the majority are lazy, go with the flow, get angry, rejoice and fantasize.

A rational egoist opposes any mystic with his irrational reliance on feelings as a tool for understanding the world around him and belittling the intellect. From here there is a direct road to superstitions and delusions of a schizophrenic who believes in the ability to control external events with the power of his own thoughts. A reasonable egoist will not allow himself to be confused by all kinds of verbiage. In such cases, he easily turns on his skepticism, and, if necessary, healthy cynicism, because he understands the axiom: “if you don’t write your priorities in your diary, then strangers will be in it.” Let me emphasize once again that a more developed person must be more selfish in order to fully demonstrate his abilities. At the same time, his mind contributes to the “careful” manifestation of his individuality, so as not to accidentally harm others who live by completely different values.

A rational egoist is, of course, more optimistic than vice versa. About yourself - a little better than about others (individuality); for yourself – a little more than for others (reasonable egoism); about the world - a little better than it actually is, and your chances in it are a little higher than real (moderate optimism). A wonderful bouquet of qualities, isn’t it? It is no coincidence that the already mentioned Ayn Rand considered selfishness an unconditional virtue, and despised hedonism and altruism. a fair exchange always takes place , and not greed or hidden manipulation.

A reasonable egoist understands his personal uniqueness and does not try to build his life in accordance with unattainable ideals, suppressing natural human reactions. He feels himself to be an integral subject and therefore does not contrast the “good” and “bad” (from the point of view of traditional church morality) parts of his personality. The desire for pleasure, humor and spontaneity coexist peacefully in him with responsibility and hard work. His mind correctly determines the context in which this or that quality will be used in a timely manner. At the same time, he is able to notice mistakes made, correct them and learn from them. Such a person avoids not only external, but also internal shackles (for example, drug addiction) and strives, wherever possible, to make life easier in order to devote more time to self-realization. A psychologically mature subject does not need external authorities, because he lives his own life, not someone else’s. A reasonable egoist understands the need for some isolation from others in order to achieve greater freedom. Therefore, sometimes he builds and sometimes he destroys barriers. After all, adulthood includes the understanding that only you yourself know best the most suitable way of life for you. Only you and no one else. For such a person there are no “good” and “bad” qualities, “pure” and “impure”, but there are timely and untimely. Moreover, in a holistic and balanced personality, one pole cannot exist without the other: it stands out only in contrast to its opposite. If there were no obedience, there would be no authoritarianism, etc. So different poles in the human psyche should be “friends” and interact. Declaring one of the poles as “good” and the other as “bad” immediately forces a person to admit his inferiority and, moving towards the supposedly “better” pole, fall under the influence of various kinds of charlatans and manipulators (see the chapter on sects). If, for example, I consider unselfishness a higher value than egoism, then for the purpose of “spiritual improvement” and the (vain) fight against my egoism I go to “surrender” to church, after which my personal uniqueness can be put to rest - in every sense of this words. After all, now my life will be subordinated not only to an unattainable ideal, but also to those specific people who declare themselves to be a “link” between earth and heaven. By the way, people who strive to master the “highest” spiritual values ​​offered by religion are also selfish in their own way: after all, they want to earn eternal pleasures after death. Isn't this selfishness?

Therefore, the egoism that I write about has its “counterbalances” - in the form of reason and in the form of moderation. As they say, three in one! Thanks to this balance, a person grows not “broadly”, affecting the interests of others, but “heightly”, realizing himself as a unique personality. Indeed, thanks to egoism, we can better preserve our own identity and creativity. By the way, it does not cancel its opposite - altruism, when there is really a need for it. For example, this concerns love, empathy for loved ones, in a word, everything that forms reliable relationships. After all, we want the people around us to be happy too! But we will not sacrifice ourselves for this.

If a person is an unreasonable egoist-egocentric, who does not have internal brakes and balances, then “external” structures in the form of psychiatrists, police, etc. are needed to curb him.

In a modern system of psychotherapy called REBT (rational emotive behavioral therapy), moderate selfishness is placed first among other aspects of mental health. This is how the founder of REBT, Albert Ellis, characterizes this concept: “An emotionally healthy person, first of all, is honest with himself and does not masochistically sacrifice himself for the sake of others. Much of his kindness and consideration for others stems from the idea that he himself wants to enjoy freedom from unnecessary pain and limitations. Therefore, he is likely to be willing to give his time and energy if it will help create a world in which the rights of others, as well as his own, are not unreasonably limited.” REBT strongly encourages long-term, i.e. moderate hedonism, which does not lead to destructive consequences for the physical health and psyche of a person. “Moderate hedonists” understand that they will live for a long time, so they cannot risk everything for the sake of obtaining momentary benefits and tempting temptations. And here, as we see, intelligence allows you to find a balance between the present and the future.

In a word, reasonable egoism is simply necessary for a person who wants to find happiness through creativity and self-realization.

Links

• Nikolai Naritsyn.
  Reasonable egoism (reasonable egoism as a recommendation of a professional psychoanalyst and psychotherapist)
• Andrey "Varraks" Bortsov.
  Reasonable egoism (Satanism and reasonable egoism)

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Reasonable egoism” is in other dictionaries:

Reasonable selfishness

- a term introduced by Chernyshevsky to designate the ethical principles he developed. The basis of Chernyshevsky’s ethics, largely built under the influence of the teachings of French. materialists of the 18th century, as well as C. Fourier and L. Feuerbach, lie the attitudes, the meaning of... ... Russian Philosophy. Encyclopedia

REASONABLE SELFISHNESS

- a term introduced by Chernyshevsky to designate the ethical principles he developed. The basis of Chernyshevsky’s ethics, largely built under the influence of the teachings of French. materialists of the 18th century, as well as C. Fourier and L. Feuerbach, lie the attitudes, meaning to ry... ... Russian philosophy: dictionary

REASONABLE SELFISHNESS

- an ethical concept put forward by the enlighteners of the 17th-8th century. which is based on the principle that a correctly understood interest must coincide with public interest. Although man is by nature an egoist and acts only out of his own interest, out of... ... Thematic philosophical dictionary

REASONABLE EGOISM is an ethical teaching that assumes that: a) all human actions are based on an egoistic motive (the desire for one’s own good); b) reason makes it possible to single out from the total volume of motives those that constitute a correctly understood ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

selfishness

- a, m. égoïsme m. 1. Philosophy that asserts the real existence of only the soul. 70s 18th century Exchange 156. Disgust for Hisism, according to which everything relates only to oneself. Interlocutor 1783 2 24. False sensitivity refers everything only to itself; according to ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

This article needs to be completely rewritten. There may be explanations on the talk page... Wikipedia

Egoism (from the Latin ego “I”) 1) psychological term: The value orientation of a subject, characterized by the predominance in his life of selfish personal interests and needs, regardless of the interests of other people and social groups.... ... Wikipedia

The terms “egoism” and “egotism” can refer to: Egoism is behavior that is entirely determined by the thought of one’s own benefit. Reasonable egoism is the belief that first of all you need to act in your own interests. Solipsism (sometimes... ... Wikipedia

Selfishness

- in psychology, this is a value orientation, a quality of a person, thanks to which he puts his own interests above the interests of other people, a group, or a team. An egoist will never take part in a business that will not bring benefits to him; he does not understand the sacrificial morality of serving his neighbor. The behavior of a selfish person is completely determined and guided by motives of personal gain, without regard to how much his gain may cost others.

Altruism and egoism are opposite concepts and it follows from this that the egoist is focused on satisfying his own needs, while completely neglecting the interests of others and using them as a means through which selfish personal goals are achieved.

An egoist is in love with himself with all his soul, sometimes he forbids others to love him, because he considers them unworthy of his attention, which is why such people almost always remain lonely. A selfish type of behavior is characteristic of people who have too much self-confidence. When they have a definite desire to possess something, then it must be served to them immediately and on a silver platter. They completely exclude the fact that they won’t have it or that they need to wait a while for it.

Links and further reading[edit]

• Bayer, Kurt (1990). "Egoism" in a companion to ethics
  . Peter Singer (ed.), Blackwell: Oxford.
• Brink, D. 1992, “Sidgwick and the Justification of Rational Egoism,” in Essays on Henry Sidgwick, ed. B. Schultz, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gauthier, David (1986). Morality by agreement
  . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Geert, Bernard (1998). Morality: Its Nature and Rationale
  . Oxford University Press.
• Kagan, S., 1986, “A Theory of Rationality Focused on the Present,” Ethics 96: 746–59. JSTOR 2381097
• McKenzie, Alexander J. (2003). "Evolutionary Game Theory". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  (Summer Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). link
• Moseley, Alexander (2006). "Egoism." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  . J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.). link
• Mueller, D. (1989). Public Choice II
  . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Parfitt, D., 1984, Reasons and Men , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Parfit, D., 1986, Reply to Kagan, Ethics , 96: 843–46, 868–69.
• Paul, E. and F. Miller and J. Paul (1997). Personal benefit
  . Cambridge University Press
• Shaver, Robert (1998). Rational Egoism: A Selective and Critical History. Cambridge University Press.
• Shaver, Robert (2002). "Egoism." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  (Winter Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). link
• Sigvik H. Methods of Ethics. London, 1874, 7th ed. 1907
• Smith, Tara (2006). The Normative Ethics of Ayn Rand. Cambridge University Press.
• Sober, E. and D. S. Wilson (1998). For Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Selfless Behavior
  . Harvard University Press.