The human basis for morality is self-interest or egoism (from the Latin ego, "I"), according to Russian-born philosopher Ayn Rand, who popularized the idea of egoism. This viewpoint has its own version of the Golden Rule: we should "do unto others" who will eventually/hopefully do the same to us. If I scratch someone's back, eventually someone will scratch mine. In fact, each person has a moral duty to pursue her own self-interest exclusively. According to the egoist, I am the one who best knows what I need—much better than any other person. So self-interest comes before the interests of others. This is what the good life is all about—pursuing what I want.
This view fits quite nicely with today's relativistic "true for you, but not for me" mentality. Relativists aren't interested in finding truth but in preserving their own autonomy. This isn't a logical argument against relativism, of course. I'm just trying to point out that the true(!) basis for relativism is ultimately rooted in its motivation rather than in any good reasons or persuasive arguments.
If self-interest is the basis for decision making and setting our priorities, we run into a host of problems.
First, this view often fails to distinguish between self interest and selfishness. In the Disney movie Ice Age, Sid the Sloth—a really nice guy—is being discussed by two female sloths. Says one, "He's not much to look at, but it's so hard to find a family man these days." The other replies, "Tell me about it. All the sensitive ones get eaten." The implication is this: if you want to survive, look out for yourself, not others. Rand's discussion of this subject seems to suggest that self-sacrifice and self-preservation are opposed to each other. If I am deeply concerned about others, then I am less likely to preserve my own life.
Such thinking is confused. Taking care of oneself isn't the same as selfishness. The Scriptures themselves assume that we already love ourselves; so we're commanded, "Love your neighbor as [you already love] yourself" (Mark 12:31). A normal self-love means that we will, for example, feed and take care of our bodies. As Paul writes, "No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it" (Eph. 5:29). Self-love isn't a goal to pursue (Paul warns Timothy to avoid those who are "lovers of self" in 2 Tim. 3:2, 5), but rather a fact to be acknowledged. The fact that we love ourselves is to guide us in our love for others: given our knowledge of how we want to be treated, this should serve as a model for how we treat others (Matt. 7:12).
Second, this view commits the "naturalistic fallacy," illegitimately moving from "is" to "ought." We all recognize that we can easily cater to our self-centered tendencies and our wants. Too often we are inclined to look out for our own well-being and disregard the welfare of others (Phil. 2:3-4). The problem with Rand's view is that it makes an illegitimate jump from the way we are to the way we ought to be (known as the "naturalistic fallacy"). However, such a conclusion—moving from the descriptive to the prescriptive—doesn't follow. Why accept Rand's view? Why not affirm that we should resist our self-centeredness rather than give in to it? There is nothing logically compelling about making Rand's recommended move.
Third, when we speak about how we "ought" to live, we are speaking of universally applicable ideals—but this flies in the face of egoism. It's ironic that an egoist would announce far and wide that selfishness (or self-interest) is a virtue to be pursued. If we're talking about ethics, then we're talking about universal relevance—a stance all should embrace. But this works at cross-purposes for the egoist. Presumably, Ed the Egoist wants others to embrace this view as intellectually superior and to act on it, but this would mean that Ed is recommending that others cater to themselves rather than to Ed! As egoism becomes universalized and practiced, it actually undermines itself. It tells others to live for themselves rather than to live for me! This suggests that egoism is a deficient view. Why would egoists want their views universalized? Instead, they should keep quiet about them!
Fourth, we can never trust an ethical egoist. The ethical egoist can't be trusted when offering moral advice to others, because it will ultimately be to his own advantage—not another's—to follow it. After all, the egoist is always me-deep in conversation! Advocates of egoism only create a climate of suspicion around themselves. This, of course, renders egoism suspect; it turns out to be a very counterintuitive notion.
Fifth, the egoist's desire to get what he "wants" turns out to be an empty or trivial concept—or worse. The egoist says that what he "wants" is the primary drive to all that he (or anyone else) does. People usually don't betray their friends—even if doing so under severe pressure or possibly torture would give them considerable relief. They want to be loyal. If some cave in to pressure, it's because they want relief more strongly than loyalty.
The problem here is fourfold:
Sixth, even if egoists lay claim to self-interest rather than selfishness, we're left with the problem of arbitrariness—why only this virtue and no others? Some philosophers make the distinction between being selfish and being an egoist. To be selfish means we show no concern for others. An egoist, on the other hand, may show concern for others, but this is driven by her own feelings of pity, not the condition of the poor or unfortunate. For example, the seventeenth-century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes claimed that he gave to beggars because of his own sense of pity. He didn't want to walk away feeling guilty.
Even so, it seems that self-interest is only part of the moral picture. Why think that this alone would be the only moral virtue? While a person may legitimately consider his own concerns as an object to pursue (within limits), this need not be the only one.
So we can see that the egoist is on to something—even if he is misguided. Indeed, our lives are often helped by boundaries we create for ourselves—to get the necessary rest, for instance; in doing so, however, we'll be better able to serve other people. If we're cranky without our sleep, we should make sleep a priority. It benefits us as well as those around us. There is more to the moral world than our own self-interest.
Seventh, the pursuit of power or self-interest isn't an end in itself; it is a means to something else. But how is that goal to be determined? Perhaps the best example of egoism in the field of philosophy is Friedrich Nietzsche's emphasis on "the will to power." He despised Christianity, which, he claimed, sprang from a doormat theology. For Nietzsche, the pursuit of power mattered. We're left wondering, however, why this is the supreme value. And isn't pursuing power a means to something else rather than an end in itself? "Power" is just an arbitrary value.
Eighth, even if I may end up getting some benefit from a charitable act (e.g., someone recognizes my service), it doesn't follow that this was my motive for acting charitably. The egoist says that we all inescapably act from self-centered motives—even apparently self-sacrificing persons like Mother Teresa, who, according to this line of thinking, was seeking a reward in the afterlife and avoiding punishment.
However, when human creatures show love for God and others, this doesn't mean such actions are motivated by nothing more than punishment-avoidance and reward-mindedness. The sheer enjoyment of God's presence—the greatest good of humans—and his approval of us are reward enough. C. S. Lewis offers a delightful picture:
Money is not the natural reward of love; that is why we call a man mercenary if he marries a woman for the sake of her money. But marriage is the proper reward for a real lover, and he is not mercenary for desiring it....Those who have attained everlasting life in the vision of God know very well that it is no mere bribe, but the very consummation of their earthly discipleship.
Ninth, there will inevitably be a conflict of interests (or egos). What happens if my interests clash with another's? How do we adjudicate between conflicting personal agendas? What happens when an ethical egoist becomes a powerful dictator? At this point, the egoist doesn't want to have his viewpoint embraced by another (despotic) egoist.
Tenth, any "obligation" to self-interest is merely a matter of convenience for the egoist. Since the egoist's moral rules are really ones of convenience or expediency, the "duty" to self-interest will only exist as long as it is convenient. When it isn't convenient (e.g., when an egoistic dictator is pursuing his own self-interest), the oppressed egoist can't appeal to higher moral principles without inconsistency.
There are some fairly hefty problems with the mind-set of "looking out for number one." The other-centered life that the other-centered triune God calls us to is not only far more attractive, but to live this way is in keeping with how God designed us. God has made us to relate to him and to one another—to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12:28-33; Luke 9:57-62). Ultimately, we flourish when living by "the Jesus Creed." God's commands have our best interests in mind—they are "for your good" (Deut. 10:13; cf. 8:16; 30:9). We harm ourselves when we try to "create our own reality." This egoistic pursuit actually flies in the face of reality.
Frankena, William K. Ethics. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Chapter 2.
Graham, Gordon. Eight Theories of Ethics. London: Routledge, 2004. Chapter 3.
Lewis, C. S. "The Weight of Glory." In The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses. New York: Macmillan, 1965.
McKnight, Scot. The Jesus Creed: Loving God, Loving Others. Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press, 2004.