Egoism in conventional understanding is usually viewed as the act of selfishness, absence of altruism, or the concept of caring too little about others. In this essay, I intend to examine in detail the connection between ethics and social contract. I plan to focus on the argument by psychological and ethical egoists to understand their perception of ethics. Later, I will connect the understanding from the mentioned arguments to social contract theory. I know that egoism is attached to negative connotations that people are taught as they grow to tame their self-perception. Ethics and social contract are interconnected and ensure that persons pursue their self-interest but not at the expense of other people’s happiness, as explained by psychological egoism, ethical egoism, and social contract theory. The first paragraph gives details of important terms that repeatedly occur in the essay. In the next paragraph, an in-depth explanation of psychological egoist claims will be explored before shifting to ethical egoism in the third paragraph. The fourth paragraph is on contract theory and how rules and norms are established in society, and the last is a concluding paragraph.
A concise explanation of the main terms that will be recurrent throughout this paper is necessary. First, it is essential to understand that altruism is the act of showing pure concern for the well-being of others. It can be termed as selflessness, selfishness, or mindfulness that people show to other individuals. Although altruism benefits other parties, there is a notion that it is indeed motivated by the pursuit of self-interest. That is, people show utmost concern to others with the expectation of gaining something else in return. Such an idea usually causes controversy as it is quite difficult to tell an individual’s intentions, motivations, and aspirations. Egoism is another significant term, which refers to concern to oneself only (Kao 37). Here, a person can argue that egoism is rooted in selfishness that compels one to pursue own interests while disregarding other people’s needs. With the understanding of both altruism and egoism, one question is whether individuals are primarily motivated by concern for others or self-interest? Lastly, the social contract is the egoistic theory that explains how societal norms, rules, and values are established based on understanding among self-interest and rational individuals. Thus, the comprehension is that ethics emanate from the rational and self-interest agents to limit their actions to allow each individual to pursue their wishes without interfering with other people’s affairs.
An interesting understanding from the subject is the criticism of altruism by the psychological egoists. While altruists claim that people’s actions are purely motivated by concern and care for others, psychological egoists hold a different view. According to the critics of altruism, people do what they do because they want to do (Kao 40). The actions are inherently self-interest and not mindfulness of others. It is human nature that people act in a certain way to promote their self-needs. In most cases, the self-interests that people pursue are things that bring happiness to them. Hence, many philosophers agree with the theory that the fundamental objective of people’s doing is to advance their desires (Kao 41). Although people further their self-interest in various ways, including self-realization, self-development, self-governance, independence, and dream realization, among others, the bottom line is attaining a specific need. To psychological egoists, one can’t act for the benefit of another. An important lesson from this view is that individuals cannot be altruistic. Unfortunately, one can hardly tell with absolute precision the motivations for people’s actions, which means, some people can be altruistic.
Notably, the most problematic issue in ethics that causes a misunderstanding between the psychological egoists and ethical egoists is the pursuance of self-interest. Psychological egoists posit that what drives people’s actions is the pursuit of individual desires. On the contrary, ethical egoists perceive people’s doings as the motivation to obtain the best interest (Kao 39). Despite ethical egoists adamantly suggesting that people should need pursue their best interests, the same individuals limit how individuals can go after their interests. Owing to the above claim, the argument gradually aligns to the objective of the essay. The idea is to explore the relationship between ethics and self-interest, and the role social contract play. Ethical egoists argue that people are free to pursue their best needs but should be in line with morality. The issue of common good holds a significant place in such an argument as any action that fails to meet moral standards is unethical. The proponents of this view suggest that people should put their needs first, but the pursuit of such desires should not undermine other people (Kao 40). That means people should be mindful and rational while advancing their self-interests. In simple terms, the supporters of the theory urge individuals to be rationally selfish. Although the perspective advocates for morality, it fails to demonstrate how people should act in interpersonal conflict, which triggers the idea of the social contract.
Humans are social beings that interact with each other frequently while building relationships. There is always a possibility of conflict arising when individuals mingle. Thus, without definite rules to limit people’s actions, conflicts can be devastating. From the class notes and external research, I understood that since individuals are motivated to pursue their self-interests as psychological egoists argue, without regulations, the world would be inhabitable. Fortunately, people are rational, and as ethical egoists postulate, people advance their best interest in accordance with morals. Such helps prevent exploitation and interference by others who are aggressively pursuing their desires without minding their counterparts. The social contract seems to solve the limitations in the first two theories to ensure harmony in the society prevails (Gaus 6). The perspective combines human self-interest nature and rational ability to explain that rules and regulations are established to enhance social cooperation. The social understanding among people comes from acceptable values, norms, and standards the society has created. Thus, everyone presumes that the rules are there for their good and tend to act to the extent that the laws allow. According to Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), a prominent proponent of social contract theory, people form social conventions due to mutual benefits (Kao 43). From the argument, I am convinced that even the federal and state laws enshrined in the constitution are examples of social contracts humans enact to enhance social cooperation, harmony, and prosperity.
In summary, I an in-depth understanding of ethics paves the way to the realization of how society works. Although everyone is always seeking to advance personal interest, the fundamental motivation is usually to pursue the best interest. Such argument raises the concern on whether people act out of selfishness or for the sake of others. Psychological egoism explains that individuals tend to focus on one’s needs. On the other hand, the ethical egoist stretches the claim to include the concern of morality while pursuing an individual’s best interest. Nonetheless, the two perspectives do not give a convincing reason for the prevailing harmony in society even in ancient times. Thus, the social contract theory gives the much-needed answers that humans are self-interest and rational beings that created rules out of understanding to ensure coexistence, cooperation, and effective interpersonal relations in the society.
Works Cited
Gaus, Gerald F. “Egoism, Altruism, and our Cooperative Social Order.” Gauzbiz, Pp. 3-18.
Kao, Ya-Yun Sherry. “What’s in it for Me? On Egoism and Social Contract Theory.” Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019, pp. 36-44.