Altruism is defined in the Oxford English dictionary as “the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.“ We are to give of ourselves to others for their sake, without expecting any benefit for ourselves. This ethic is held by most people in the world today, and they don’t see any problem created by it (they would say it’s the source of all solutions). However, a problem arises when one considers the interests of both parties involved and the altruist morality when applied to both people. One is meant to be selfless and give to others, yet those others are meant to receive a selfish benefit from the altruist’s giving, that the concern was for that person’s sake. This puts the recipient in a morally precarious position, according to altruism, and it can resolve itself in a variety of ways. However the altruist morality plays itself out, it leaves inconsistencies and absurdities. These inconsistencies and absurdities aren’t present in a proper egoistic morality.
The altruist morality creates situations that don’t make sense when given proper scrutiny. Altruism creates an ethic where one is supposed to give to others but not benefit oneself. This creates a conflict in which the altruist must either give to a selfish person or try to give to an altruist. Although it seems less contradictory, giving to a selfish person can be contradictory in that altruism is supposed to be an ethic for everyone. The isolated act of giving to a selfish person against one’s interests wouldn’t be contradictory according to the definition, but the selfish person himself would contradict the ethics. However, if an altruist tried to give to another altruist, that other altruist would properly refuse the gift or concern, as he must refuse the offer of another altruist to selflessly act for the giving altruist’s benefit, himself. This creates a contradiction in which neither altruist is properly able to give for another’s well-being, as each must eschew their well-being. Each person is selflessly devoted to other people but each person would selflessly deny help. For everyone to practice altruism is for nobody to receive any benefit.
When one considers egoism, one doesn’t observe these contradictions. Egoism places the well-being of the practitioner first. This creates no issues, because there isn’t a confusion of intent or purposes. There’s no instance where the practitioner has to deny themself, and it doesn’t require the existence of another person to be practicable. In terms of other people, the egoist expects to get selfish benefit from them, and he expects them to expect to get selfish benefit from him. For egoism, all participating parties are meant to receive benefit.
Although altruism is accepted by most people, it holds social contradictions when one begins to reflect on how it’s carried out. Altruists have the dilemma of giving to selfish people or other altruists, where the selfish person isn’t in agreement with the altruist ethics and the altruist wouldn’t accept the gift/concern. Ultimately, altruism is reduced to an absurdity that makes it untenable as a morality. Only accepting a non-contradictory morality, like egoism, is the proper antidote to the issues caused by altruism.
Thanks again.