In the previous section, we talked about how people make decisions on things they believe to be right or wrong, duties. In actual living, no one can operate purely on the basis of what they believe is right or wrong, because duties constantly come into conflict with one another. Despite frequent rhetoric we hear about Christians believing in absolutes, no one is even predominantly absolutist in the way they live. Life continuously requires us to make choices between competing interests and values.
For example, as a Christian, I am obligated by God to help those in need (e.g., Matthew 25:37-40). Yet it would seem that Christians are also obligated to provide for their families (e.g., 1 Timothy 5:8). Many Christians also believe that they are still obligated by the Old Testament to give a tenth of their income to the church, since the Israelites were required to bring a tenth of their increase in crops and livestock to the temple (e.g., Leviticus 27:30-32). Yet I only have a certain amount of income. If my resources are diminished and it seems that I am unable to fulfill all these duties, how do I decide which duty to except?
In real life, we constantly operate by weighing alternatives against each other. When I am in a restaurant trying to decide what to order off of the menu, I usually ask myself, What choice will bring me the most pleasure? I weigh the hamburger against the chicken according to what will make my stomach most happy. We make these sorts of choices all the time, especially in the Western world where we have been blessed with so many options and opportunities.
A person who lives his or her life completely with a view to what will bring about the greatest pleasure for him or her is an egoist. Egoism is an approach to ethics that operates on the basis of what will bring the greatest pleasure or benefit for me. [1] A good illustration of this position would be Ayn Rand, who wrote a famous book called The Virtue of Selfishness.
[text box: egoism]
In this book, she argues that it is actually immoral for you to do good things for others without any benefit to yourself. The reason is that she believes it is only when we are looking out for our own interests that everyone will have the maximum benefit. So if someone does not look out for his or her own interests, the system breaks down.
Of course as a guiding philosophy, the egoist approach to life runs directly counter to fundamental Christian values. It is difficult to see, for example, how the egoist mandate to put your own interests above all others fits with the fundamental Christian absolute to love your neighbor as you love yourself. We should not twist this Christian ethic to emphasize the "love yourself" part. The command assumes that you look out for yourself and commands us to extend that same level of concern to others.
A passage in one of Paul's letters emphasizes the point. In Philippians 2:4 Paul tells the Christian believers in the city of Philippi, "Let each person not look out only for their own concerns but also each for the concerns of others." He goes on to illustrate what he means by telling the story of Jesus in 2:5-11. Although Jesus had the authority of God, he did not take advantage of that authority but he emptied himself and assumed the role of a servant, just like everyone else. Then even as a human, he submitted to a cruel death on a cross, something Paul elsewhere says Jesus did for those who were actually God's enemies (Romans 5:8, 10). Clearly this sort of mindset is not the mindset of an ethical egoist.
...
[1] We should not confuse "egoism" with "egotism," which is an attitude where a person thinks that they are better than others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I understand that pragmatically leaders make the plans they want to carry out, which is what they choose to be the "greater good". But, I'm sure those leaders are also thinking about what is also something that they want or desire to "get". This is what social contract is about. Leaders are responsible in this sense, as they represent "god to others" (and I don't mean to distinguish between "spiritual priestly leadership" and "worldly business leadership"). Therefore, an institution, which needs to make good business choices, as they are to be stewards of resources, then determine what plan or course of action they will take.
Whenever leaders plans do not mesh with goals and priorities of another, then there has to be a choice that one doesn't belong to the mission or purpose of the aforementioned "plan". Personal decisions are made for many reasons and cannot be easily judged as egotistic.
Our government's bail-out of Wall Street was for the public's good? Well, that all depends on whether one benefits from Wall Street. What about the bail out os Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac? Some would believe that this was our duty to others, but others would think that this was supporting irresponsibility. So it is not a matter of "self or other". It is a matter of self AND other. It is a matter of what priorities one values most, self-responsibility or self-abnegation. I don't think either is anti-thetical to a Christian view.
BTW, I think egoism is a good thing, as it means that one has come to understand themself enough to know what it is their priorities are and where they will or won't compormise. This is good, as it means that "self" has developed. Denying oneself to belong to a group is not healthy identity, but co-dependence and enmeshment, a need to belong because belonging means identification at the costs of "self-development"...
I think that Ayan Hishi Ali found this to be true in regards to Islam. Her "self" was so connected and identified with religion, that it was hard for her to "pull away" and develop her own sense of identity. She talks about this in her book, Infidel. But, I also believe that her atheism is due to the abuse she suffered, as suffering became identified so much with the way she understood her religion, that she created another identity. This is healthy and normal for humans.
"Egoism is an approach to ethics that operates on the basis of what will bring the greatest pleasure or benefit for me" (ken)
I think the idea does fly in the face of the Christian morality/ethic on 'loving our neighbor' - as you aptly point out.
Sometimes doing the best for us is the worst for others - this is eaily demonstrated in the business arena. I love the fact we have such convenience on this side of the world - but who is suffering for that convenience? Sometimes having this attitude does hurt others.
I would also add that sometimes we give to people not expecting anything back - that's not really looking out for our best (maybe Ayn Rand doesn't know about this?). I helped out many people out of my pocket - to never see the money again - to me that's part of supporting the community (which is a very Christian thing to do).
I agree with you - egoism - is not really a teaching of the gospel - or if anything it's 1/3rd of the base commandment 'Love God, love neighbor as yourself'.
It is fine if we want to be oriented around the Golden Rule, but this is a choice of value and sometimes even applying the Golden Rule is at odds with another's purposes or plans, because we all have different ways we want to be treated in certain specific instances. We can think that we are treating another with appropriateness, but they might not see it that way.
For instance, in furthering the goals of democracy. I fully believe personally that democracy is the best way people flourish as it gives choice and freedom. But, in other cultures which do not value freedom or choice, this is the height of arrogance and paternalistic attitude. So, is our modern enlightened paradigm the best and how do we know that. If we understand that morality develops best under democratic governance, then, how do we implement what we know scientifically is best?
Although I agree that our business choices are demoralizing to others across the oceans, does my limiting the opportunities to myself or others help those others directly? I find that there are many areas where my life intersects anothers and therefore impacts another's, but does that mean that I allow another to determine my life...and therefore have no life of my own? No, if there is a God, surely, he would desire that my life would be lived to the fullest. That means that I do not define my life by sacrifice, but by giftedness. If that giftedness means that I sacrifice, then, that is what will bring life the fullest meaning and value to myself as well as others. I find too many religious people limit their own development because they superimpose a "morality" upon themselves that limits their own life.
Post a Comment