Rational Egoism and Altruism as the Foundation for a Better Future

Any discussion of a better, safer world involves, sooner or later the conflicting concepts of altruism and egoism. One of the best ways to understand this conflict is comparing the views of Ayn Rand in the "Ethics of Emergency" and Peter Singer in "The Singer Solution to World Poverty".

While both authors support their views with strong arguments and complex scenarios, it is difficult to take one side over the other. The two reduce the concepts or ethics to a matter of choosing between two goals: self-preservation (Ayn Rand) and species-preservation (Peter Singer). 

In real life, these two goals do not and should exclude one another. On the contrary, in most of the cases, they complement one another. Man should not have to choose between his life and those of others, but rather learn and focus on how to live his own life in such a way as to positively influence other lives.

Ayn Rand's Ethics of Emergency

"Ethics of Emergencies" was included in the 1964 collection of papers and essays belonging to Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. As its title suggests, it discusses the fact that man's ethical principles are based on emergency situations. The author uses the classic scenario of the "lifeboat" as representative for an emergency and promotes the survival of the fittest. 

According to Rand, in emergency situations, it is perfectly natural, moral for one person to sacrifice another one in order to save themselves. The scenario imposes that the person in question choose between their life and the life of someone else on the boat, reduces life to a matter of killing or being killed and man's condition to that of a murderer or a victim. Man is expected to learn a lesson and choose between becoming a murderer and sacrificing his life for a higher purpose.

The problem with Ayn Rand's theory is that daily life emergencies generally do not involve killing or being killed, nor do they involve a conflict of interests. Trying to create an analogy between the lifeboat scenario and real life is impossible, simply because there are numerous situations in which man can make choices that are beneficial for themselves and for the others at the same time. By accepting the idea of a life dominated by conflicts of interest, man will end up creating unnecessary conflicts, sacrificing himself unnecessarily or trampling on other people's interests even when he has nothing to gain.

The author describes emergencies as situations in which human life becomes impossible. The person that survives the lifeboat scenario does so only by removing themselves from the emergency situation. The shore equals water, food, medical help and, implicitly, an end of the emergency. During the emergency, however, people lives are in danger.

Then, what if all people found themselves in such emergency situations at least once in their life, and followed the moral path described be the author? What if the person one is supposed to sacrifice in order to reach shore is a surgeon, the member of a bomb squad that could save thousands of lives or the president of the country? Thousands of people would have to die. Saving those people would be ethical for them, but unethical for the person sacrificed.

The message the essay succeeds to send is not the one intended by the author, that, in case of emergency, people have right of life and death over others, but that emergencies should not be taken too seriously. People should focus not on surviving such situations, but on avoiding them or ending them sooner, they should work together to find solutions rather than sacrifice one another.

"The Singer Solution to World Poverty"

In "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", Peter Singer presents the hypothetical case of a man named Bob who has invested all his savings in an uninsured Bugatti, a car that he parks on the side of a railroad before going for a walk. He notices a child in the distance, playing on the tracks, in front of a runaway train. 

Bob has to choose between his car and the life of the child. He could use the nearby stitch and divert the incoming train onto the siding, but, since that would mean seeing his precious car damaged, he chooses to allow the death of the child.

The author makes it clear that Bob's choice was mistaken, and most people would probably agree that he should have saved the child. The car is a symbol of luxury, of the things that people work hard for but could and should live without, as they are less valuable than human life. 

People have the chance to save lives every day, by giving up on things they do not necessarily need and donating them or their value to charity. Many of them, however, just like the protagonist, treasure their own comfort and preferences more than they treasure the lives of starving or handicapped children, for example. According to the author, these people do not live up to their moral obligations.

While Peter Singer's illustration of an emergency situation and the alternatives he offers may seem closer to real life and more acceptable than those of Ayn Rand, there are still many details that leave room for debate. For example, Bob is the only person present at the scene, while anyone (millions of other people) can contribute to the salvation of starving or handicapped children, to name a cause.

The author accepts the possibility for others to have be present, but argues that their presence does not exempt the protagonist from responsibility. According to him, for man, knowing that others would not do anything to help those in need means being sure that his efforts will save lives, and having the moral obligation to actually save them.

Singer's perception of moral obligation is interesting and easy to agree with at first sight, but, in real life, situations like the one he describes are unlikely, even impossible. People will rarely or never invest their lifetime savings the way Bob did and neglect them. Also, they are and should never be forced to choose between their most valuable assets and saving a life. According to him, people should work hard, not for their own benefit, but to help others.

While the intention is, indeed, noble and laudable, where does it leave motivation? Would people be able to invest the same effort knowing that the results of their work would be enjoyed by someone else? Most of them struggle to offer their loved ones access to a better life. 

Would they be as motivated having to see their loved ones settle with the basics and giving the rest to charity? There is also the question of how one's donations will get to the children whose lives need to be saved. It is a well known fact that not all the money donated to charity actually ends up supporting the cause they were meant for.

While Peter Singer's perception of morality is easier to cope with than that of Ayn Rand, the situation he uses to support it is unrealistic and subjective. He uses children as the symbol of poverty, because they represent a cause that would impress anyone. However, poverty is often used in reference to people living on social welfare, often of their own choice. Would it be fair for the working class to support such people? Is it not fair for those who work harder to enjoy higher satisfaction?

Conclusion

The two theories presented are in obvious conflict. One argues in favor or self-preservation at all cost and entitles man to sacrifice others in order to save himself. The other one encourages man to sacrifice himself in order to save others. However, both visions stress the importance of making a decision and assuming it. Man is free to decide whether to sacrifice or be sacrificed, to kill or be killed, to save or to condemn. Whatever decision he makes, it is better than running away from responsibility.

However, both theories use extreme situations, unlikely to occur in real life, as examples, and they are extreme. Life is not a matter of killing or being killed, condemning or being condemned. People can work together to find solutions, they can enjoy the results of their work and still help others. 

Neither the rational egoism presented by Ayn Rand nor the altruism suggested by Singer as a solution to poverty is a viable ethic model. A balance between the two is the most desirable, as it would mean having the courage to fight for one's ideals and looking after the others at the same time, it would enable self-preservation and species-preservation altogether.

Peter Singer's Animal Rights and Human Obligations: All Animals Are Equal

In his book Animal Rights and Human Obligations Peter Singer makes some interesting arguments concerning the issue of animal rights.

His main argument is that just as we, as a society, have learned that all people are equal, regardless of skin color or gender, we need to learn that all animals are equal, regardless of species.

Because this assertion may, at first encounter, seem absurd, he quickly clarifies what he means by it. Singer does not suggest that all other animals have exactly the same rights as people have. He uses the example of men and women:

“Many feminists hold that women have the right to an abortion on request. It does not follow that since these same people are campaigning for equality between men and women they must support the right of men to have abortions too. Since a man cannot have an abortion, it is meaningless to talk of his right to have one. Since a pig can't vote, it is meaningless to talk of its right to vote.” (149)

What Singer does believe is that all animals have a right to what he refers to as equality of consideration. He asserts that the physical and emotional needs of a dog, for example, should receive equal consideration to the needs of a human.

The results of that consideration will vary according to the nature of the animal in question, just as our treatment of humans varies according to the needs, abilities and preferences of the individuals in question.

He rests his argument on four principles that have already been established by previous equal-rights movements, and have generally become accepted as fact in human society. He reminds us that it is not acceptable to discriminate on the basis of a trait that is integral to one's existence or identity, such as ethnicity or gender.

Neither is it okay to discriminate on the basis of anatomical differences. It is also not acceptable to discriminate on the basis of a deficiency, such as physical disability or lack of intelligence. Lastly, we must not cause others to suffer just so we can satisfy our tastes or increase our standard of living.

From these four principles, he concludes that we humans are morally obligated to give equal consideration to members of other species. To discriminate on the basis of species would be to arbitrarily put our own species ahead others, and that would be bigotry.

He goes on to make three further arguments, which can also be seen as three facets of the main argument: that we should not eat meat, that we should not perform experiments on animals which we would not be willing to perform on humans, and that contemporary philosophy should not continue treating the needs of humans as though they are more important than the needs of animals.

He rests his argument against eating meat on three premises. He asserts that meat does not provide any benefit except pleasure. He implies that the act of eating meat itself (or perhaps the act of killing animals) causes animals to suffer. And he points out that meat animals are treated inhumanely because that is more profitable for the meat industry.

His conclusion is that eating meat causes other creatures to suffer for nothing more than our pleasure, and, therefore, is morally wrong.

Singer bases his argument against animal testing on two generally-accepted facts. The first is that non-human test subjects such as apes, cats and mice are just as aware of what is happening to them, more self-directing and at least as capable of feeling pain as an infant human subject would be.

The second is that we consider it unthinkable to perform the same experiments on a human (even an infant, who possesses neither higher intelligence nor much in the way of physical functionality) as we regularly perform on non-humans.

From this, he concludes that the only reason we, as a society, allow non-humans to be used as test subjects is that we condone bigotry.

The last of Singer's three further arguments is that contemporary philosophy, as a field, should end the practice of discriminating against non-human animals. He reasons that the chief task of philosophy is "Thinking through, critically and carefully, what most people take for granted." (153).

From this, he concludes that by perpetrating the speciesist bigotry that is already prevalent in our culture, contemporary philosophers are failing to do their job, and, therefore, failing to perform a worthwhile activity.

Singer supports all four sections of his argument with fairly-straightforward premises, which are entirely deductive in nature.

For his main argument, all his premises are basic moral elements that are generally accepted by the vast majority of human society. But, in my opinion, the conclusion does not automatically follow from the premises, because other factors exist, which Singer fails to mention.

The author builds his argument against eating meat on two premises that are not true statements and one that does not apply (Although it is a true statement, it does not support the conclusion.).

For his argument against animal testing, he uses two premises that are both true. But just as with his main argument, there are other facts that bear on the issue, and Singer does not mention them. So his thinking is incomplete, and, therefore, results in a false conclusion.

His argument regarding philosophy would logically be true if his main argument were true, but, in reality, the opposite is the case.

The main factor that Singer fails to consider in his main argument is love. Most animals are not loved as humans are loved, nor would anyone benefit if they were.

There is a ban on whaling for a reason: not only are whales near extinction, but they travel in pods and demonstrate a highly intelligent, strong affection for each other. We do not eat or experiment on pets because they are loved by their humans.

Perhaps the argument could be validly made that we should curtail experiments on chimpanzees to only what is truly necessary. After all, our closest genetic cousins do seem to share a strong bond between mothers and their young.

But even an adult chimpanzee is not loved in the way, in a healthy society, a human is loved for its whole life. Since being loved is arguably the single thing that differentiates the "good life" (Brandt 19) from a dreary existence, the potential for love creates the critical divide between humans and animals.

My conclusion is this: Animals do have rights, and we are obliged to respect them. We should enact sweeping reforms in our treatment of animals. But non-humans are not and cannot be equal to humans.

In regards to eating meat, it is not true that soy and other vegetarian sources provide all the nutrition the human body needs (Dong & Scott 209-216).

Eating animals does not cause them suffering, and neither does killing them. They do not know that they will be eaten, and, certainly, after they are dead, they know nothing at all. Not eating them, on the other hand, causes them inexcusable suffering by upsetting the natural cycle that is the basis for all life on Earth.

The mistreatment of animals that are intended for the table is an irrelevant argument. Yes, it is wrong and needs to be corrected. Corporate greed is a problem of epidemic proportions in modern times and causes much suffering, not only in the meat industry and not only to animals.

But to say that we should not eat meat because meat animals are mistreated makes no more sense than to say that we should not wear clothing because sweatshops exist. Instead, whenever possible, we should buy meat from small, local farmers who raise and slaughter their animals using humane methods that we can verify.

If we do not test on animals, we will be constrained to test on people. Either we will have to subject humans to the very same treatment that Singer says is unacceptable for animals (and that would be going backwards), or we will have to let the products go to market with no testing on live subjects at all. Then thousands of consumers will take the risk instead of a small number of animals. The economic impact alone would cause untold suffering.

In regards to contemporary philosophy, I believe that since Singer's main argument is false, then, of course, philosophy should not support it.