Introduction
Peter Schwartz's book "In Defense of Selfishness" presents a provocative and counterintuitive argument: that altruism and self-sacrifice are not virtuous ideals to aspire to, but are in fact harmful doctrines that lead to negative consequences for both individuals and society. Instead, Schwartz makes the case that rational selfishness is a superior ethical framework that leads to greater happiness, productivity, and social good.
This book challenges many deeply held assumptions about morality and human nature. Most people take it for granted that putting others before yourself is noble and ethical. We're taught from a young age that sharing is caring and that we should give to those less fortunate. The idea of prioritizing your own interests over others' is often seen as selfish in a negative sense.
Schwartz aims to flip this conventional wisdom on its head. He argues that altruism - the belief that we have a moral duty to sacrifice our own interests for others - is not only misguided but actively destructive. It robs individuals of their autonomy, stifles productivity and innovation, and can even pave the way for totalitarian control.
In contrast, Schwartz presents a vision of ethical selfishness based on reason, individual rights, and voluntary cooperation. He contends this leads to better outcomes for everyone compared to a society built on self-sacrifice and subordination to the collective.
While sure to be controversial, this book offers a thought-provoking perspective that challenges readers to reexamine their core beliefs about ethics, human nature, and the foundations of a good society. Even for those who ultimately disagree, engaging with these ideas can lead to a deeper understanding of morality and its real-world implications.
The Problem with Altruism
Altruism Demands Self-Sacrifice and Subordination
One of Schwartz's core arguments is that altruism is not simply about being kind or generous, but fundamentally requires subordinating yourself to others. Under altruistic ethics, you have a moral duty to put other people's needs and interests ahead of your own.
This goes beyond just helping others when you can. Altruism demands that you sacrifice your own goals, values, and even your life if necessary for the sake of others. Your possessions, money, time, and effort are seen as belonging to society rather than yourself.
Schwartz contends this effectively makes you a servant to those deemed more needy or deserving. You're expected to give up what's yours for their benefit, regardless of your own desires or interests. This strips away your right to exist for your own sake.
The Myth of the "Public Interest"
Proponents of altruism often justify self-sacrifice in the name of the "public interest" or greater good. But Schwartz argues this concept is a myth used to subordinate individuals to the collective.
He gives the example of building a park versus a shopping mall. Park advocates claim it serves the public interest and should be funded by taxes. But this forces citizens to pay for something they may not want or use. There's no objective "public interest" - just competing individual or group interests.
Ultimately, Schwartz contends that appeals to the public good are used to override individual rights and choices. It becomes a tool for some groups to impose their preferences on others through government force.
Collectivism and Loss of Identity
Schwartz draws a connection between altruism and collectivist political ideologies. Both subordinate the individual to the group or state.
In collectivist thinking, your identity and worth come from being part of the larger whole. You're just a small, interchangeable piece of society rather than a sovereign individual. This makes people more likely to blindly follow orders and sacrifice themselves for the supposed greater good.
Taken to extremes, this mindset can enable totalitarian control. If individuals have no inherent rights or identity outside the collective, there are no limits on what the state can demand of them.
Surrendering Your Mind
Beyond just controlling your actions, Schwartz argues that altruism requires surrendering your own independent judgment and beliefs.
To be truly selfless, you must obey not just with your body but with your mind. Questioning or disagreeing becomes seen as selfish and immoral. This can lead to people believing whatever they're told by authorities, no matter how irrational.
Schwartz gives the chilling example of Nazi leader Hermann Goering declaring "If the Fuhrer wishes it, then two times two is five." When selflessness is the highest virtue, even basic facts and logic can be overridden by the demands of the collective.
The Irony of Altruism
Perhaps the greatest irony, in Schwartz's view, is that altruism doesn't even help those it claims to serve. By making people dependent on self-sacrifice from others, it conditions them to paternalism and undermines their ability to help themselves.
Rather than uplifting the needy, altruism drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator in the name of equality. The result is a society of "mindless yahoos" unable to think or act for themselves.
The Case for Selfishness
Redefining Selfishness
Schwartz acknowledges that most people recoil at the idea of selfishness as a virtue. But he argues this is based on a misunderstanding of what true selfishness means.
Selfishness is typically associated with harmful or criminal behavior - cheating, stealing, hurting others for personal gain. But Schwartz contends this is a caricature that confuses selfishness with amorality or predatory behavior.
Instead, he defines ethical selfishness as rationally pursuing your own interests and happiness. This doesn't mean trampling on others or ignoring their rights. In fact, Schwartz argues that rational self-interest leads to voluntary cooperation and respect for others' freedom.
The Virtue of Rational Self-Interest
Far from being destructive, Schwartz sees rational selfishness as the foundation for human flourishing and social progress. Some key aspects of his ethical framework include:
- Valuing your own life, happiness, and well-being as your highest moral purpose
- Using reason to determine what's in your long-term self-interest
- Respecting the rights of others and dealing with them through voluntary exchange
- Taking pride in your achievements and embracing personal responsibility
- Refusing to sacrifice your interests or values to others
This approach leads to mutually beneficial relationships and social cooperation without coercion or self-sacrifice. Both parties gain value through free exchange, whether in business, friendships, or romantic partnerships.
Selfishness and Love
Schwartz even argues that true love is inherently selfish rather than selfless. You form relationships with people who bring value to your life, not out of duty or self-sacrifice.
It would be irrational to be with someone you don't like just to make them happy. Love involves seeing another person's virtues and happiness as important to your own well-being. It's about shared values and mutual benefit, not martyrdom.
The Rationality of Selfishness
A key part of Schwartz's argument is that selfishness, properly understood, is based on reason rather than whim or emotion.
He gives the example of being very thirsty but offered a poisonous drink. A truly selfish person would refuse it, recognizing the threat to their life and long-term interests. Blindly following momentary desires isn't real selfishness.
Instead, ethical egoism requires using logic and rationality to determine what's truly in your self-interest. This often means delayed gratification, hard work, and cooperating peacefully with others rather than harming them.
Selfishness as a Guiding Principle
Schwartz contends that there's no middle ground between selfishness and altruism as ethical systems. You can't be selectively selfish - it needs to be a consistent principle and way of life.
He encourages readers to fully embrace rational self-interest without guilt. In his view, it's something to be proud of as a life-affirming philosophy. By committing to your own happiness and well-being as your highest purpose, you're best equipped to thrive and contribute positively to the world.
Selfishness vs. Altruism in Society
Capitalism and Individual Rights
Schwartz draws a strong connection between ethical selfishness and free-market capitalism based on individual rights. In his view, true capitalism regards the rights of individuals as absolute and inviolable.
This means the government can't violate property rights or individual liberty for any supposed collective good. Your life, liberty, and honestly acquired property belong to you alone - they can't be appropriated by the state to serve others' needs.
Schwartz argues this system of clearly defined individual rights is essential for human flourishing. It creates the conditions for people to peacefully pursue their own interests through voluntary exchange.
Limited Government
To protect individual liberty, Schwartz advocates for strictly limited government powers. He's critical of democracy, seeing it as potentially leading to tyranny of the majority.
Instead, Schwartz favors a constitutional republic with checks and balances to restrain government overreach. The state's role should be limited to protecting individual rights, not providing services or redistributing wealth.
In his ideal capitalist society, things like public transportation, parks, and libraries would all be privately owned and funded. This ensures that only those who want to use such services have to pay for them, rather than forcing others to subsidize them through taxes.
Productivity and Innovation
Schwartz contends that a society based on rational self-interest will be far more productive and innovative than one built on altruism and self-sacrifice.
When people are free to profit from their ideas and labor, it incentivizes hard work, creativity, and entrepreneurship. The pursuit of self-interest drives people to create value for others in order to improve their own lives.
In contrast, Schwartz argues that altruism undermines productivity by penalizing success and redistributing wealth. Why work hard if your earnings will just be taken away to support others? This creates a culture of dependency and stagnation.
Meritocracy vs. Egalitarianism
A key difference Schwartz highlights is that selfishness embraces inequality of outcomes, while altruism seeks to enforce equality.
In his view, it's right and proper that the most talented, hardworking, and innovative people reap greater rewards. This incentivizes excellence and benefits society as a whole through their contributions.
Altruism, on the other hand, tries to bring everyone down to the same level in the name of fairness. Schwartz sees this as deeply unjust - punishing ability and success while rewarding need and failure.
He argues we should celebrate and empower exceptional individuals rather than trying to handicap them for the sake of equality. A society that embraces inequality of achievement will be far more dynamic and prosperous.
Freedom vs. Control
Ultimately, Schwartz frames the choice between selfishness and altruism as one between freedom and control.
A selfish, capitalist society maximizes individual liberty and voluntary cooperation. People are free to pursue their own vision of happiness without interference, dealing with others through mutually beneficial exchange.
An altruistic society, in his view, inevitably leads to expanding government control and loss of freedom. If we have a moral duty to sacrifice for others, the state will step in to enforce that duty through coercion and wealth redistribution.
Schwartz argues that only a social system based on rational self-interest can truly secure human rights and allow people to flourish.
Critiques and Counterarguments
While Schwartz presents a forceful case for ethical egoism, his ideas are sure to face strong objections from many readers. Some potential counterarguments include:
Ignoring Human Interdependence
Critics may argue that Schwartz's vision of the self-sufficient individual ignores how deeply interconnected and mutually dependent humans really are. We rely on countless others for our survival and flourishing.
A more nuanced view might see enlightened self-interest as naturally extending to care for one's community and society, rather than pure individualism.
Lack of Compassion
Many would contend that Schwartz's philosophy leaves no room for genuine compassion, empathy, and concern for others' welfare. They may see rational self-interest as cold and lacking in basic human kindness.
Defenders might respond that true compassion comes from surplus and choice, not duty and sacrifice. A prosperous, free society allows more genuine charity than a coercive altruistic one.
Negative Externalities
Critics could point out that pure self-interest often imposes costs on others or society at large. Without some collective action (i.e. environmental regulations), individual pursuit of profit could lead to pollution, resource depletion, etc.
This suggests a need to balance individual liberty with some consideration of broader social impacts.
Oversimplified Dichotomy
Some may feel Schwartz presents an overly simplistic either/or choice between total self-sacrifice and pure self-interest. Most ethical frameworks try to balance concern for self and others rather than wholly rejecting one side.
A more moderate position might advocate for a mostly self-interested approach that still leaves room for some degree of altruism and social responsibility.
Ignoring Power Dynamics
Critics may argue that Schwartz's idealized version of capitalism ignores real-world power imbalances, exploitation, and systemic disadvantages that prevent true equality of opportunity.
Without some redistribution or social safety net, they contend, a purely individualistic system will lead to extreme inequality and suffering for many.
Conclusion: A Challenging But Thought-Provoking Perspective
Whether one ultimately agrees with Schwartz's arguments or not, "In Defense of Selfishness" offers a bracing challenge to conventional moral wisdom. By so starkly opposing altruism and making the case for ethical egoism, it forces readers to reexamine their core beliefs about morality, human nature, and social good.
Some key points to reflect on:
- Is altruism truly as harmful as Schwartz contends? What are its real-world consequences?
- Can rational self-interest alone provide a sufficient ethical framework? What, if anything, is it missing?
- How do we balance individual liberty with social cooperation and collective challenges?
- What are the practical implications of these ideas for government, economics, and culture?
Even for those who reject Schwartz's conclusions, engaging seriously with his arguments can lead to a deeper, more nuanced understanding of ethics and human flourishing. At minimum, it's a bracing reminder to question our assumptions and think critically about the true foundations of a good society.
Ultimately, Schwartz's book is a forceful call to embrace our own life, happiness, and individual rights as our highest values. Whether one sees this as a liberating philosophy or a dangerously selfish one, it's sure to provoke thought and debate for years to come.