1. Introduction
In this essay, I argue that it is rationally preferable for a human being to act altruistically than to not do so if and only if the altruistic behavior does not harm the benefactor in any way. In the following paragraphs, I will present two theories that are considered consequentialist: Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism, then compare and contrast them to decide which theory presents a more rationally appealing reason for why altruism is morally advantageous. For the sake of this essay, the definition of altruism is exclusively, disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
2.1 Ethical Egoism and Altruism
The theory of Ethical Egoism argues that I ought to pursue my self-interest; by any means necessary. In this way, Ethical Egoists believe that it is morally acceptable for a person to put her interests, and consequently her happiness and safety, before other people’s. However, her interest might be related to helping someone else, so being a follower of Ethical Egoism does not necessarily make her a selfish person. For instance, many people do acts of kindness every day, because it makes them feel good to see others feeling good, so they are, indeed, pursuing their self-interest, and the outcome, in this case, does not only benefit the Ethical Egoist for meeting their goal but the person she is helping as well. Since Ethical Egoism states that a person must pursue her interest, in this case, it is helping someone for the sake of the gratifying feeling afterward, it would be illogical for a follower of Ethical Egoism to harm herself while being altruistic; which is the reason why my thesis states that it is only favorable for a human being to act altruistically if the altruistic behavior does not harm that person in any way.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Therefore, Ethical Egoism will never forbid an act of kindness if its primary goal is to benefit the person’s self-interest. The fact that Ethical Egoists put the individual welfare before the collective one makes it seem like it is a fairly virtuous theory: if everyone becomes a follower of Ethical Egoism, that means we will all be acting based on our benefit; which suggests that since we are all pursuing our interest, eventually we will reach collective welfare. However true my last statement happens to be, there are still many issues concerning collective interest and Ethical Egoism. For instance, even if everyone became followers of Ethical Egoism and pursued their self-interest, it would not, as previously proposed, guarantee collective well-being. As already mentioned, if a person is a follower of Ethical Egoism, that means she can do whatever it takes to meet her intentions, and this may include harming someone else; therefore, if everyone were to act in their self-interest, it would be much more likely for the world to become a dangerous place where a person can do whatever she pleases for her benefit with no regard for other people. Surely, someone’s self-interest may include acting altruistically, but it would not be the majority’s; in fact, most people’s interests have to do with their satisfaction rather than somebody else’s, and if it is morally permissible for them to do anything that will make them reach their goal, they may never have to think twice.
2.2 Utilitarianism and Altruism
Utilitarianism is a theory that argues that the most morally acceptable manner for a person to act is in a way that benefits the greater good. That is, the larger the number of people a person can positively affect in the long run is the best way to act. This theory makes moral dilemmas such as, “Who would you save?” very interesting, as it claims that, if killing one innocent person prevents the death of, say, five other innocent people, then it would be morally right to kill that one person. However, for this example to be accurately utilitarian, everyone’s lives must be of equal worth, because if the innocent person’s life happens to be more valuable than the other five people’s lives, it would not be utilized for the greater good to save the lives of those five people just because they are in greater quantity. This is, however, a very extreme example, considering that it involves having to kill either or, instead of being able to spare everybody’s lives. As for how altruism can be viewed by a utilitarian, if the principle of utilitarianism is to “maximize utility,” then it may be quite obvious to assert that altruism is a great virtue for a person who practices utilitarianism to have, given that altruistic actions will usually lead to a maximized utility.
Both Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism are considered consequentialist theories because they focus on the outcome of the actions. If “the end justifies the means,” then nearly any generally considered immoral action, such as lying or murder, is morally permissible. For a follower of Ethical Egoism, if the result of an action she performs provides satisfaction to her, the action is justifiable; the reasoning is the same for a follower of Utilitarianism: if the outcome of an action benefits the greater good, the action is justifiable. That is the reason why an action such as killing an innocent person would be justifiable if in the end there would be more utility acquired from it than keeping that person alive, as ruthless as it may seem. Therefore, if the outcome is what counts for Utilitarianism, altruism will almost always be morally acceptable, since altruistic actions will generally result in maximized utility.
3.1 Example One: Parking
To better comprehend how an Ethical Egoist would deal with the dilemma of either acting altruistically or not, I will use a fairly simple, and possibly relatable, example. When a follower of Ethical Egoism is looking for a place to park, she may find a perfect spot that could easily fit two cars if she parallel parked her car close enough to the one in front of her. In other words, if the Ethical Egoist took her time to adjust her car so that it was perfectly behind the one already parked there, a third car could park behind hers with no difficulty. However, would an Ethical Egoist risk wasting a little bit of her time just so a stranger could park behind her instead of having to park somewhere else? There are, in my opinion, only two reasons why she would do such a thing: if the person who is about to park behind her is not a stranger, but instead vital for her self-interest to be reached; she would then want to keep the person content, so that she would, shortly, have her self-interest attained. The other reason would be if her interest is related to being morally appropriate, so the fact that she is helping someone does not mean that she wants the person to be pleased, but her interest depends on it. Therefore, there would not be an instance for this parallel parking example in which the Ethical Egoist would act altruistically just for the singular purpose of putting someone else’s contentment before her own.
As for how a utilitarian would act in this situation, the explanation may be a little simpler: a follower of Utilitarianism would most likely make a considerable effort to park her car the way it can best benefit the car that will be parked behind hers. The reason why the outcome of this example when applied to a utilitarian is more evident is because the principle of the utilitarian theory, or at least the classic version of it, is solely concerned with whether there will be greater or lesser happiness of individuals. Considering that the utilitarian properly parallel parking her car would not hurt her in any way, she would undoubtedly do so to generate greater benefit. As long as the altruistic action does not harm the benevolent person in any way, it is morally preferable to act altruistically and take a little bit of time to make sure there is enough space for a third car to park.
3.2 What If...
What if, for instance, the task of carefully parking one’s car was considered correct simply because it would benefit the next car parking behind it? If the person had not positioned her car a little forward so that another one could fit behind hers, she would not be doing anything wrong; her parked car would still be in the right place, only no one would have the chance to park behind it. Additionally, what if the person parking her car were running late for a meeting, but, because she would want to make sure that someone would be able to park behind her, she would take a little extra time to adjust her car, even a mere ten seconds, making her arrive at the meeting even more late? From the perspective of an Ethical Egoist, she would not bother improving the position of her car; an Ethical Egoist would never sabotage her self-interest for the sake of someone else’s interest. From the perspective of a utilitarian, giving up her interest would generate convenience for someone else, and given that the end justifies the means when it comes to a consequentialist theory such as Utilitarianism, she would most likely threaten to arrive later for her meeting.
However, as altruistic as it is for the utilitarian to give up her self-interest to favor someone else, it may not be as logical. If she arrived even later at the meeting, she would be generating not greater, but rather lesser happiness: she would feel regretful for arriving late, and she would probably be seen as an unreliable person by the ones she is late to meet with. Therefore, since being altruistic in this case would be inconvenient not only to the benevolent person, but also to the people she has a meeting with, it would be rationally, and morally, preferable to act according to an Ethical Egoist rather than a utilitarian. Moreover, opting to not act altruistically, but rather act the way an Ethical Egoist would do, in this case, would not harm anyone, whereas acting altruistically would harm both the Ethical Egoist and the utilitarian.
4.1 Example Two: Bake Sale
Suppose a person decides to run a bake sale fundraiser, and all the money she makes through the baked goods goes to a charitable organization. This person, then, does not make any money for herself; she spends her own money buying the ingredients, takes time baking the goods, and then gives all the money to charity. An Ethical Egoist, considering the facts about the bake sale given in the last sentence, would never do such a thing. As previously acknowledged, a follower of Ethical Egoism ought to pursue her self-interest exclusively; assuming that acting altruistically by giving the money a person has earned to a charitable cause does not satisfy her self-interest at all, let alone exclusively, an Ethical Egoist would never run a nonprofit bake sale. Even supposing that this person is far from being harmed by spending her own time and money on a bake sale, the fact that she would not benefit in any way is a more concerning reason to an Ethical Egoist.
In contrast, a utilitarian would certainly run a nonprofit bake sale, because donating the money to a charitable cause would most likely maximize utility, and from the perspective of a utilitarian, this outcome is the reason why spending her time and money on a nonprofit activity is worthwhile. A follower of Utilitarian would not mind not gaining any benefits to herself, and since she is not being harmed in any way, acting altruistically would be rationally preferable, in this case, than not doing so. Taking into account that the charity produces the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people, which is what the principle of Utilitarianism is all about, it is morally preferable to act like a utilitarian would act in this case, and run the bake sale.
4.2 What If…
A utilitarian would run a charitable bake sale no matter the process because the consequence is always related to a maximized utility. However, perhaps if a few facts about the bake sale were altered, an Ethical Egoist would consider being benevolent. For instance, altruistic behavior will always be admirable. If an Ethical Egoist’s self-interest is related to being respected and admired, even if it is not in her interest to be altruistic, acting altruistically, in this case, by running a bake sale, would result in her interests being reached. This, of course, would only meet her interests to an extent, as being an altruistic person is not about promoting someone else’s welfare, but only her own; therefore, acting altruistically just to meet the goal of being adored would certainly not be an Ethical Egoist’s first choice, since other ways of being seen as admirable do not include charity. Acting morally by running a nonprofit bake sale would only be possible for a utilitarian to do with no reluctance.
Stuck on your essay?
