I think Ayn Rands philosopophy of objectivism says it all.
I quote "“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man — i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism — the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
If that is too long winded just read the last couple of lines.
In the example you gave, a combination of the ‘self-interest’ element and the ‘altruistic’ element prevailed over the ‘anti-self-interest’ element because the result of the decision was that you made the donation. However, your definition of an altruistic element starts with ‘I feel good…’, so I maintain that this is just a subset of self-interest.
I agree with your view that ethical systems (and any community with inherent rules) encourage the channeling of self-interest. It is in my interests to live in a safe, secure, rewarding society and therefore to follow the rules of that society. In an ideal world our personal interests are also common interests with those around us and conflicts of interest are avoided.
In re-reading my point about evolution/problem-solving I can see that it is poorly worded and I apologise for any confusion. Really, it’s just an adjunct to the main point of the debate but I’ll try to clarify. I am a believer in evolution and natural selection. I believe that cognitive thought, memory and consciousness arose as evolutionary adaptations (not donated to us by some higher entity) which gave our ancestors a big advantage over contemporary animals. I believe that if human decision-making is purely in self-interest this is strong evidence that consciousness was developed naturally, as part of a survival/advancement mechanism in a competitive environment.
PS for anyone interested in this subject I suggest taking a look at ‘The Prehistory of the Mind’ by Steven Mithen
I think I may have worded the ‘altruism’ element of my decision-making-breakdown badly. What I was trying to convay was that the actual fact that others will be benefited by my decision * is a factor* which can (maybe) be separated from the other elements of the decision.
It seems that in your definition the statements ‘This is self-interested’ and ‘This contains more elements of self-interest than self-denial’ and ‘I made a decision to do this’ are all mutually interchangeable. That is, the very fact that I make a decision to do something is proof that, in my opinion, it is in my best interests (in some way).
Is that the case? If so, every action must by definition be self-interested, and we’re going in circles.
Re evolution:
If you’re defining self-interest as something comprising emotional components as well as practical components then I don’t think that evolution can select for it * in particular*. Evolution can only select for things that increase your chances (or your relatives’ chances) of having lots of children. I think that the propensity of humans to make decisions that are against their evolutionary self-interest is actually something that needs explaining, rather than something that can be used as proof of how our decision making processes were produced evolutionarily.
Thanks for your post. I have never seen that essay before and I found it fascinating. As you say it goes a lot further than we have here…plenty of food for thought.
No offense, but I think that Ayn Rand totally misused the term “selfish” – just as she totally misused the term “altruistic.” By blurring the lines between selfishness and self-interest, she made selfishness sound palatable to the casual reader.
Hint: if, in trying to figure out whether or not every action is selfish, your related definition of “altruism” works out “doing something you don’t have any reason for, or value in, doing” then you’re probably on the wrong track.
Back in my single days, I would sometimes be in a bar and spot a table with a couple of females who weren’t getting asked to dance, seemed to be bored, etc. Oftentimes the problem wasn’t a lack of attractiveness, but was caused by their obvious lack of cheerfulness.
On such occasions, I would buy them a round of drinks and explicitly tell the waitperson that they were not to say who they were from. This often resulted in them cheering up, and attempting to figure out from whence they came, thus making them more approachable by others.
When I did this, I wasn’t trying to impress the ladies, as they never knew where the drinks came from. I wasn’t trying to impress the waitperson, as I would do this no whether there was any attraction to the waitperson, and even regardless of their gender.