Optional theme 3: Ethics
To what extent do you agree with the claim that ethics is more about self-interest than about
the interests of others?
The central issue of normative ethics could be discussed through either ethical egoism or
ethical altruism. The question in the title implies the theory behind ethical egoism, which
claims that people ought always to do only what is in their own self-interest. On the contrary,
ethical altruism is about people being unselfishly concerned for the good of others and acting
for the sake of other people’s interests. This essay will focus on the arguments of ethical
altruism, claiming that ethics is more about the interest of others. I will confront the theory of
ethical egoism while opposing the arguments of a Russian writer and philosopher, Ayn
Rand.
The first argument explaining why ethics is about selfishly serving our own interests claims
that psychological egoism implies ethical egoism. Psychological egoism is the theory that
people always act in their own self-interest, and it is because of our human nature that
ethical altruism is simply impossible. Because this psychological theory is supported by the
laws of nature, it is unreasonable to assume that humans would do anything else but work
for their own good. Thus, ethical egoists say that it is our moral obligation to perform actions
only if they maximize our own self-interest and doing anything else would be unethical. For
instance, if a person saves another human from a fire while risking his/her life, they did so
not because they wanted to save that human but because doing this would benefit them in
some way. Maybe it makes them feel good, or they gain something from saving that human;
thus, they were only motivated by their own self-interest. Critics, however, found multiple
examples that don’t go according to the psychological theory. This happens when people
willingly work on the contrary to their best self-interest despite having a clear understanding
of what would be best for them. For example, smokers are aware of the bad health effects
smoking has on their bodies, but they will still very often not change their behaviour.
There’s another problem with the theory of ethical egoism, called the conflict of interests.
Some claim that it is contradictory for us to seek our own interests but then advise others to
do the same; it is not very egoistic of us to tell others to work in their favour instead of ours.
Hence, what we advise others, does not align with what we actually desire, which is our own
self-interest. In competitions, for example, we want to win the race, but at the same time, we
also want our competitors to do their best and advise them to win the race as this would be
working towards their own self-interest.
Rand and other ethical egoists, however, would, in this case, say that the example is just a
limited domain of human action and that the ethical theory must be applied to life in general.
An important thing Rand claims is that the rational interests of men don’t clash and that
conflicts between men will not occur if rational humans only desire what they deserve. She
sees humans as ‘traders’ who will always take only what they deserve, which will benefit
both parties. So, in the competition example, one would only desire to win if they believe
they deserve to win and are more worthy of winning than the other person. In this case, a
man (‘trader’) is an egoist, pursuing their self-interest, but he/she is constrained by the
principle of fairness. Looking at her arguments, however, Rand’s claims seem very
To what extent do you agree with the claim that ethics is more about self-interest than about
the interests of others?
The central issue of normative ethics could be discussed through either ethical egoism or
ethical altruism. The question in the title implies the theory behind ethical egoism, which
claims that people ought always to do only what is in their own self-interest. On the contrary,
ethical altruism is about people being unselfishly concerned for the good of others and acting
for the sake of other people’s interests. This essay will focus on the arguments of ethical
altruism, claiming that ethics is more about the interest of others. I will confront the theory of
ethical egoism while opposing the arguments of a Russian writer and philosopher, Ayn
Rand.
The first argument explaining why ethics is about selfishly serving our own interests claims
that psychological egoism implies ethical egoism. Psychological egoism is the theory that
people always act in their own self-interest, and it is because of our human nature that
ethical altruism is simply impossible. Because this psychological theory is supported by the
laws of nature, it is unreasonable to assume that humans would do anything else but work
for their own good. Thus, ethical egoists say that it is our moral obligation to perform actions
only if they maximize our own self-interest and doing anything else would be unethical. For
instance, if a person saves another human from a fire while risking his/her life, they did so
not because they wanted to save that human but because doing this would benefit them in
some way. Maybe it makes them feel good, or they gain something from saving that human;
thus, they were only motivated by their own self-interest. Critics, however, found multiple
examples that don’t go according to the psychological theory. This happens when people
willingly work on the contrary to their best self-interest despite having a clear understanding
of what would be best for them. For example, smokers are aware of the bad health effects
smoking has on their bodies, but they will still very often not change their behaviour.
There’s another problem with the theory of ethical egoism, called the conflict of interests.
Some claim that it is contradictory for us to seek our own interests but then advise others to
do the same; it is not very egoistic of us to tell others to work in their favour instead of ours.
Hence, what we advise others, does not align with what we actually desire, which is our own
self-interest. In competitions, for example, we want to win the race, but at the same time, we
also want our competitors to do their best and advise them to win the race as this would be
working towards their own self-interest.
Rand and other ethical egoists, however, would, in this case, say that the example is just a
limited domain of human action and that the ethical theory must be applied to life in general.
An important thing Rand claims is that the rational interests of men don’t clash and that
conflicts between men will not occur if rational humans only desire what they deserve. She
sees humans as ‘traders’ who will always take only what they deserve, which will benefit
both parties. So, in the competition example, one would only desire to win if they believe
they deserve to win and are more worthy of winning than the other person. In this case, a
man (‘trader’) is an egoist, pursuing their self-interest, but he/she is constrained by the
principle of fairness. Looking at her arguments, however, Rand’s claims seem very
