What’s in it for me? Discover why selfishness might be praiseworthy after all.
Do you think the words “selfish” and “moral” are opposites?
Most people would argue that they are.
If you act selfishly and only in your own best interest, you’re certainly not acting morally, right?
But these blinks dissent.
They argue that concern for your own well-being isn’t just natural – it’s the foundation of all moral evaluation, and the basis of life itself.
These blinks lay out arguments that strike at the roots of contemporary ethics.
From the conviction that we should always help others to the idea that morality is purely subjective, they take moral certainties and turn them swiftly on their heads.
Whether you find yourself enthusiastically agreeing or sighing in dismay, you’re likely to be moved either way.
In these blinks, you’ll learn why morality has an objective basis; why some rights just can’t coexist; and why you shouldn’t always try to help others.
Morality can be determined objectively.
Most people agree that taste is subjective.
Some people like spicy foods – others can’t stand them.
Some people like rich desserts – others prefer something lighter.
On the whole, these preferences don’t cause us much trouble.
We’re content to live and let live, so we don’t insist that our tastes are objectively “correct.
” But what about when it comes to something serious?
What about morality?
Is that just a personal preference too?
To put the question another way, are ethical beliefs purely subjective?
Or can we actually ground them in hard facts?
The key message here is: Morality can be determined objectively.
According to the author, morality isn’t just a question of taste.
The issue of right and wrong is one that arises from the facts of life.
How so?
Well, a human being is an organism like any other.
And, like all living things, humans face two stark options at any given time: life or death.
If we don’t want to die, then we naturally opt for life.
This decision is key because committing to life provides us with a standard we can use to weigh up our actions.
This point is worth dwelling on.
By committing to survival, we provide ourselves with a fundamental value – life.
And with that single value, we’ve set up a natural ethical framework.
What does this framework look like?
Well, it’s pretty simple: what helps us to survive is good, and what threatens our existence is bad.
That all sounds fairly straightforward.
The problem is, humans can’t always tell which actions will help them survive and which will endanger them.
We can’t rely on our instincts alone to tell poisonous berries from edible ones, or true friends from traitors.
These are questions we must figure out for ourselves.
In other words, in order to choose between the good options that keep us alive, and the bad options that threaten our survival, we must use our ability to reason.
Of course, we can get it wrong, and end up making foolish decisions.
But that doesn’t change the facts of morality.
Some decisions are objectively good for us – and some are objectively bad.
Selfishness is good – as long as it’s rational.
So we now have a fundamental and objective moral principle.
Since we are committed to life, anything that preserves our life is morally good, and anything that endangers it is morally bad.
This is a novel conception of ethics, and it’s vastly different from what most people believe.
According to orthodox thought, the most “moral” action is the least selfish one.
In other words, most people think a good person always acts selflessly, whereas a bad person only pursues selfish urges.
But the author argues that this is a false view of morality since it ignores our natural obligation to look out for our own interests.
The key message here is: Selfishness is good – as long as it’s rational.
According to the author, every human being is “an end in himself.
” This is an old idea in moral philosophy, but it takes on a new meaning in our context of self-interested morality.
If people are “ends in themselves,” it means they possess importance in their own right.
In other words, they don’t exist in order to further anyone else’s personal agendas.
But the phrase tells us something more.
If other people don’t exist just to make us happy, then we don’t exist to make others happy either.
Every human being has the responsibility to look out for her own welfare.
And only with that principle in mind can you live truly morally.
This idea sometimes confuses people.
If it’s moral to pursue your own interests, does that mean anything that pleases you is morally good?
Not at all.
Ultimately, not everything that pleases you is truly in your interest.
And not everything you want is a rational desire – sometimes it can be a dangerous whim.
So to live morally, you have to make some important calls.
Living morally actually means shouldering quite a burden.
It also means making use of your ability to reason.
After all, if we pursue irrational urges, we often end up harming ourselves and damaging our commitment to life.
But when we use reason to seek our true self-interest, we are pursuing the highest moral good.
Help others only if you have selfish reasons to do so.
Imagine you’re happily married to a man who is diagnosed with a serious illness.
Naturally, you’re distraught.
You’re also lucky – you have substantial savings, and you can just about pay for the life-saving treatment your husband needs.
But should you?
What if the same sum of money could save the lives of ten people suffering from a different disease?
Many people will tell you that the most moral choice is the least selfish one.
But according to what we’ve just learned, this isn't what true morality is about.
The key message here is: Help others only if you have selfish reasons to do so.
In choosing between the life of your husband and the lives of ten strangers, saving your husband is both rational and selfish.
This, as we've seen, also makes it the moral decision.
But wait a minute.
Isn’t it good to sacrifice your own needs for others?
Surely it would be moral to put the lives of ten others in front of your own spouse?
Well, not according to the author.
If you saved ten random patients, you’d be treating a lesser value – the welfare of strangers – as more important than a greater one – the welfare of your spouse.
This, of course, is exactly what constitutes a sacrifice – surrendering the greater in exchange for the lesser.
But it’s also irrational and detrimental to your interests, and therefore morally bad.
After all, you have a rational, selfish interest in your husband’s life.
You enjoy his company, and you want the best for him.
His welfare concerns you and affects your happiness.
In short, you love him.
But that doesn’t mean you feel “selflessly.
” On the contrary, your love for him is as personal and selfish as it gets.
And that’s a good thing.
Our selfish interests naturally include the interests of those we care about.
It’s not a sacrifice, and it’s not selfless, to look after those we love.
But it is good.
When it comes to strangers, though, we don’t feel the same selfish affection – and we shouldn’t act as though we do.
Help people in emergencies, sure, but don’t sacrifice your interests out of a false sense of duty.
A capitalist society respects the principles of self-interest and natural rights.
So far we’ve been looking at the virtue of selfishness on a personal level.
But what about on a broader scale?
Is collective selfishness good?
Or even feasible?
According to the author, it is.
There’s one political structure that encourages people to pursue their own interests while recognizing the right of others to do the same.
It’s a society founded on trade.
The trader is a natural exemplar of the rational, self-interested citizen.
She works productively toward her goals.
She steals nothing and receives only what she earns.
And she treats others neither as masters to be served, nor as inferiors to be ordered about.
The key message here is: A capitalist society respects the principles of self-interest and natural rights.
In the author’s view, a society of traders is a society characterized by pure, unregulated capitalism.
Why do capitalism and natural rights work so well together?
To answer that question, we first need to look at what exactly “rights” refer to.
In essence, a right is a legal entitlement.
According to the Founding Fathers, American citizens have the right to do more or less anything that doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.
The vision laid out in the Declaration of Independence makes clear that citizens are born free and can’t be forced into obedience by society.
Because citizens can’t be forced to act against their wishes, society develops along other lines.
Instead of relying on brutal compulsion, social cohesion is guaranteed another way: through the emergence of capitalism.
A capitalist system motivates citizens by appealing to their rational economic self-interest.
These citizens are encouraged to form rational, self-interested relationships, which benefit them mutually but also contribute to the growth of society as a whole.
We have a society of traders, prospering through trade.
Now, we’ve seen that rational, self-interested actions are moral actions.
So if capitalism is built on rational, self-interested actions, it follows that it is a fundamentally moral socio-economic system.
A capitalist system cannot, and does not, force anyone to do anything.
Instead, citizens appeal to each other’s self-interest while respecting their natural political rights.
Every person is seen as an end in themselves – with interests and rights that can never be overlooked.
The function of government should be limited to defending our rights.
Even in a capitalist society, a government is a necessary evil; sadly, not everybody can be relied on to respect their fellow citizens’ rights.
Some people steal.
Some murder.
Some make agreements they have no intention of fulfilling.
The function of government is to regulate society – to make sure nobody infringes on anyone else’s rights, and to hand out punishment if they do.
But the ideal government in a capitalist society does nothing more than that.
It does not tax people by compulsion.
It does not regulate their private conduct.
It leaves citizens to do as they please, so long as they leave their fellow citizens free to do the same.
The key message here is: The function of government should be limited to defending our rights.
Unfortunately, these days the American government does far more than just protect our rights.
In 1960, the Democratic Party ran on a platform that marked a profound change in political thinking.
Previously, Americans’ rights had consisted merely of freedoms – like the basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But now, many newly invented rights began to be called for too.
Among others, democrats pronounced a “useful and remunerative job,” as well as “medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health,” as fundamental rights.
A job and medical care are pleasant things to have, sure – but offering them as rights is very dangerous.
Why?
Because the new rights don’t just join the old, established rights.
They end up undermining and replacing them.
Look at it this way.
Giving every citizen free medical care means taxing some people in order to spend money on others.
But in a system of pure capitalism, each citizen has the right to dispose of her income however she sees fit.
So what becomes of that right when one citizen is forced to subsidize the bills of another?
It disappears.
Rights like these simply can’t coexist.
If we want to live in a society that respects our true rights and our rational self-interest, then the powers of government need to be drastically restricted – and stay that way.
Free thinkers should prepare to face intellectual intimidation.
It’s not trendy to champion capitalism, and defending self-interest rarely wins you many friends.
So if you shop for opinions based on their popularity, it’s probably best to forget everything you’ve learned in these blinks.
But what if you base your principles on something more fundamental?
What if you think things through and conclude that self-interest is, in fact, morally good – and that capitalism is the only economic system consistent with real political rights?
Well then, prepare to fend off a whole bunch of naysayers.
If you’re lucky, your moral and political opponents will try to out-argue you.
More often than not, though, they’ll adopt a more pernicious tactic.
The key message here is: Free thinkers should prepare to face intellectual intimidation.
One of the simplest ways to avoid engaging with an argument is to simply dismiss your opponent as immoral.
Even more effective is to present your opponent with an opportunity: come around to the correct and “orthodox” way of thinking, or expose yourself as cruel, cold-hearted, or utterly and irredeemably ignorant.
The author calls this tactic the “Argument from Intimidation” – though it isn’t so much an argument as a way of undermining argumentation itself.
It’s an attempt to bypass analysis and debate altogether.
The way the Argument from Intimidation works is a lot like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes.
In that story, a group of tricksters sell an emperor nonexistent clothing by telling him that only moral people can see their handiwork.
The king, who can’t see anything, is too afraid to admit it.
So he allows himself to be wrapped up in his new “robes” and then continues about his business.
When the public catch sight of the naked emperor, they, too, are afraid to admit that they can’t see his clothes.
Instead, they attempt to outdo each other’s extravagant compliments – until one honest child blurts out that the emperor is totally naked.
Someone who makes use of the Argument from Intimidation is hoping that you’ll be pressured into agreement, just like the cowardly public in that tale.
Challenging their assertions, they suggest, will expose you as an immoral person who can’t see the magical fabric that everyone else sees.
If you find yourself in this situation, respond with all the sincerity of that single, honest child.
Moral certainty – and a commitment to the pursuit of truth rather than approval – are the only weapons against intimidation of this kind.
Final summary
The key message in these blinks: Morality has an objective and natural basis, and it compels us to pay attention to our own interests.
That doesn’t mean we should ignore those we love or mistreat those we don’t know – but it does mean we should never sacrifice our own concerns out of a sense of duty to others.
Also, some political systems are better suited to human virtue than others – the best being a free, capitalist society.
Got feedback?
We’d love to hear what you think about our content!
Just drop an email to remember@blinkist.
com with The Virtue of Selfishness as the subject line and share your thoughts!
What to read next: In Defense of Selfishness, by Peter Schwartz Are you still unconvinced?
Will it take more than the arguments we’ve just seen to shake your moral convictions and persuade you that it’s good to be selfish?
If so, head on over to our blinks to In Defense of Selfishness, where you’ll discover even more arguments against altruism and in favor of capitalism and self-interest.
Will you be converted to the cause?