Mid-Michigan Objectivist Club

Self-Interest vs. Altruism

What is altruism? Altruism is the practice of placing other people's interests before your own. It implies that to be altruistic, you would be willing to sacrifice (your time, money, effort, or life) in order to help others. It is very common for altruism and self-sacrifice to be considered a virtue and for selfishness to be considered a vice.

This is NOT what Objectivists believe.

To live a life in western society, most people have to follow their rational self-interest. They take on a job or career, not for the interest of their employer, but for their interest in making money to survive. They work harder to get a higher-paying job or a promotion because it allows them to live more comfortably. Self-interest, in a monetary sense, also motivates the investor to invest money in the development of new technologies, motivates the entrepreneur to compete and offer better products, and motivates the inventor to innovate with the hope for future rewards. Self-interest is necesssary for survival and makes life better for all of us. Why should it be considered a vice?

There are many people in the world who are poor, homeless, sick, or otherwise in need... An altruist would suggest that to live a moral life, you should sacrifice your time and money to help them. The question that should arise is this- "To what extent should I help?" Should it be to the point where I work long hours while living in abject poverty to help as many needy people as is possible? There is no rational answer here from the altruist. To the extent people buy in to this altruist premise, they they will feel conflicted and guilty- their personal happiness is conflicted with the happiness of an unlimited number of needy individuals. They are left with three choices - A) a person who follows their self-interest, but is morally unsound; B) a person who may be morally sound, but living miserably; or C) the middle-ground between the two, a person divided against himself, unsure what to do.

An objectivist would say that, under normal circumstances, you do not owe any obligation to the great mass of "other people" in the world. You, acting in your own self-interest, determine who you value in your life and who you choose to help and how. If you choose to help others, it can be rewarding, but you only have to do so to the extent you would find it personally rewarding. This means two things - 1) to the Objectivist, there are no moral demands to help others simply because they have a need and 2) to the Objectivist, the act of helping others can be an act of rational self-interest if the individual enjoys it or if they value directly the person they are helping.

Under non-normal circumstances (emergencies), it is reasonable to help others as part of a rational "social compact" that most people accept today (at least one would hope, if you ever found yourself drowning in a lake with able-bodies swimmers on shore!). In such cases, an individual can and should assist the other person, but not to the extent where they would sacrifice their own life. However, emergencies are not the norm, and the primary message here is that the individual has no long-term obligation to self-sacrifice to the benefit of other people.