Thank you, Ehab Syed, for this fascinating question.
The question is full of interesting ambiguity. What does it mean to live for others or ourselves? And in what sense of ‘better’? Are we asking which form of life is better? I will assume that to live for others or ourselves means to embrace one of two rules: either the rule that the good of others is one’s only reason for acting – we can call this the “rule of altruism” – or the rule that the one’s own good is one’s only reason for acting – we can call this the “rule of egoism.” Notice that most people embrace neither of these rules. Most people do not take the good of others as their only justification for acting, since they pursue many pleasures that are good for themselves. But equally, most people do not take the good of themselvesas their sole justification for acting, since they often act for the sake of others’ well-being. So, we can think of these two views as opposite poles of a spectrum of views, some of which are more egoistic, and some of which are more altruistic.
Now the key question is, in what sense is the rule of altruism better than the rule of egoism (or vice versa)? Is it better for ourselves? Better for others? Is it morally better (which is similar to, but not quite the same as, being better for others)? Let’s consider whether it is morally better to adopt the rule of altruism. It might at first glance seem that, since the morally good person is concerned with others’ welfare, the rule of altruism is better from the moral point of view. After all, we often think of saints as followers of the rule of altruism, whether consciously or not. Yet most people are not saints. To be dedicated to the good of others with no consideration for oneself may leave most people exhausted, embittered, and morally numbed. On the other hand, while egoists see their own good as the sole justification for action, what their good consists in might very well include the good of others. Given these ideas, which rule is morally better seems to depend upon what kind of person one is.
If we consider which rule is better for ourselves, again it may at first seem that the rule of egoism is clearly better. After all, the rule of egoism tells us to care exclusively about our own well-being, so someone following this rule would devote much of their attention to their own interests. Yet here again reflection suggests that following the rule of egoism would not make us as happy as could be. Arguably, we can access many benefits to ourselves only by caring about the good of others for their own sake. For example, for a doctor to derive a real sense of meaningful satisfaction from toiling to develop a cure for some disease, she must care about the welfare of those who could be cured; otherwise, the project would seem pointless, particularly if there was no extrinsic reward to be had. But a person following the rule of egoism would care about a pursuit only for the sake of their own good. Thus, following the rule of egoism would cut oneself off from many sources of happiness.
What do you think? Egoism or altruism – is one better than the other? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
If you like what we do, you can support us by buying us a coffee!
Image: Narcissus, by Caravaggio (1597–1599)
I received my BA in philosophy from the University of Chicago and my PhD from the University of Notre Dame. I specialize in ethics, with a particular focus on the nature of normative reasons and the ethics of hypocrisy in its myriad forms. My favorite philosopher is Henry Sidgwick, since I believe—to borrow a line from Alfred North Whitehead, speaking about Plato—that much of analytic ethics in the 20th century is a series of footnotes to Sidgwick.