An Argument for the Irrelevance of Egoism

An egoistic act is one that has as its primary motive one's own interest.  There are of course smart and stupid egoists.  Sometimes an act that we think is in our own interest is not, so some egoistic acts are not actually in one's own interest.  There are a number of complicated questions surrounding egoism, whether we necessarily are egoists, and whether we should be egoists. 

There are many kinds of egoist theses.  A sampling:

Psychological Egoism (PE): It is a psychological fact that humans only ever act egoistically.
Ethical Egoism (EE): Humans may sometimes act non-egoistically (PE is false), but it is not ethical for them to do so.
Rational Egoism (RE): Humans may sometimes ethically act non-egoistically (PE and EE are false), but it is not rational for them to do so.

There are many complicated arguments for and against the various versions of egoism.  Here are two premises from the Dalai Lama that (if true) lead one to a conclusion that obviates much of the discussion.

"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." Dalai Lama

Whether or not you are an egoist, practice compassion.  In logical terms, the question of egoism is orthogonal to the question of compassion.  Do folks agree?

Comments

[Kevin]

quite a good thing to thinke about with a strong concluding message. which goes to say if you are compassionate about what you are doing wether it benifits oneself our not the outcome theoretically should be positive. but I would have to lean towards the psycological egoism. there exists a drive that causes people to act, and esentially this drive is created by something something that would better oneself. whether it be something financial or emotional its still personal. if you're walking down the street and a homeless guy asks for money for food and you go buy him food you can still be acting on ego because of the feeling it gives you, its a feeling you enjoy.

[Jeremy Shipley]

I think it's true that alot of us feel good about ourselves when we do nice things for people. I don't think that proves PE though. Just because a beneficial outcome for ourselves is predictable doesn't mean that that outcome was our motive. Anyhow, what fascinates me about the Dalai Lama quote is that it wouldn't matter whether PE is true. I'm not entirely convinced that the DL is right. Too much compassion can make you miserable. There's alot of suffering in the world and if you spend too much time thinking about it you'll get overwhelmed (I do sometimes). I actually like that prayer that alcoholics use--the point behind it--about the wisdom to tell the difference between what you can and can't change.

[SSmith]

And you call yourself a philosopher? ROFL.

[Griff]

DL's claim is really an empirical matter. If it, in fact, turns out that compassion makes both you and others happy, then - as far as compassion is concerned - it always seems to be "the thing to do" (if morality hinges on making someone "happy"). Of course, it might still be a morally relevant question as to why the agent acts out of compassion. Indeed, egoism seems primarily concerned with the motivations of agents, not necessarily the acts they perform. DL (if correct) does not rule out the relevance of ethical egoism. If it's the case that you always ought to act egoistically, then compassion motivated solely by concern for others might end up being immoral. (It seems that on EE it is the motivation that is assessed for moral value, not merely the act performed.) Likewise, with RE, the assessment of the rationality of an agent's actions of compassion might hinge on the reasons she performs them.

Another related question might be whether the phrase "act of compassion" presupposes that egoism is false. Depending on how you define 'compassion', it might be the case that all acts of compassion are acts that are not (primarily) motivated by egoistic concerns.