The Ethics of Selfish Altruism: Analyzing the Contradictions with John Stuart Mill and Kant

Photo by Andy N on Unsplash

I’ll tell you something—life’s not simple. I know, I know, you’ve heard that before. But it’s true. Ask anyone, especially the ones who pretend to know what they’re talking about.

They’ll tell you that altruism is a golden child, the beacon of morality. But then, they get all flustered when you bring in the kicker: what if you’re doing something for someone else, but it’s really for your own selfish reasons?

You know, like buying your mom flowers because it makes you feel like a good son—yet, deep down, you’re doing it because you need some points in the karmic bank.

So, let’s roll up our sleeves, pour a drink, and dig into this conundrum.

The Setup: What is Selfish Altruism?

Before we get into the gritty details of who said what and why it matters, let’s break down what we’re talking about. Selfish altruism, the ugly duckling of moral philosophy, is the idea that you can do good things for others, yet still have selfish motivations.

It’s the “I’m giving to charity, but hey, I look good on Instagram” vibe. Sure, you’re helping someone, but you’re also patting yourself on the back in the process.

It’s like the Underground Man from Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground—you know, that book that drags you down like a bad hangover and makes you question everything you thought you knew about morality.

The Underground Man, he’s the guy you meet at the bar who’s got a thousand opinions and no friends. The kind who spends all night ranting about the world’s evils, but when it comes to doing something real—hell, he can’t even get out of his own way.

He’s some old bureaucrat who spends most of his time buried in his own self-loathing, pretending he’s got the answers to life’s big questions.

And yet, deep down, he knows he’s just another washed-up failure with a chip on his shoulder. He’s the kind of guy who’ll say he’s better than everyone, but when it’s time to actually do something good, he can’t pull it off without wrecking it.

He tries, though. There’s this part where he gives some cash to a prostitute named Liza. He thinks he’s doing something noble, but really, he’s just using her to feel like a big shot.

He tells himself, “I’m helping her,” but deep down, he’s just trying to control the whole situation. He tries to make her believe he’s some kind of saint who’s here to save her from her misery. But the truth is, he’s just using her to feed his own ego.

A little self-righteous act, wrapped up in a nice, shiny bow of moral superiority. Pathetic, really.

And then, when Liza gets too close, when she actually starts to believe in his pathetic little redemption act, he pushes her away like he’s scared of anyone seeing the fraud behind the curtain. Oh, I’m not that guy, he thinks. I’m not a good person. But he sure as hell loves pretending he is.

So, is he a good person? Not really. But here’s the twist—he’s just like all of us. We all try to do the right thing, but when it comes down to it, we’re all just looking for some validation.

We don’t act out of pure goodness. We act out of selfishness, wrapped up in some nice, polite mask. And when we get close to doing something pure, we run like hell because deep down, we’re scared of actually being decent.

Scared that it might make us weak.

So, are any of us good people, really? Hell if I know. Maybe we’re all just stumbling through the mess, doing a few decent things here and there, but in the end, it’s always for us.

For our own redemption. And maybe that’s the only truth worth sticking with: we’re all just trying to save ourselves, one selfish good deed at a time.

John Stuart Mill: The Hedonistic Rationale

If there’s a philosopher who’d argue that selfishness can slide by unnoticed, it’s John Stuart Mill.

Mill’s Utilitarianism is like a truck full of high-calorie donuts, all sugar-coated with the idea that the right thing to do is whatever maximizes happiness.

So, yeah, if your good deed benefits others but also makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, Mill would say you’re on the right track.

Mill’s vision was straightforward: happiness is the ultimate goal.

The ethical value of an action is judged based on the outcome—the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

If you’re doing something for someone else, but the net result is a surge of happiness (and that includes the happiness you get), then it’s a moral win in Mill’s book.

Doesn’t matter if it’s selfish. Just look at the scoreboard.

Now, before you run with this, Mill’s view doesn’t grant carte blanche to go around being a smug jerk. He’s not saying that selfish motives make all actions okay—he’s just saying that if your actions create happiness, the intention doesn’t matter as much.

In simple terms, Mill’s like a friend who says, “It’s fine, we all need to have a little fun, right?”

Sure, it’s nice to help old ladies cross the street, but if it makes you feel like a hero? It’s still good, as long as more people are happy. It’s a little hedonistic, a little selfish, but it works.

Immanuel Kant: The Duty of Pure Intentions

But wait. Let’s look over at Kant. This guy’s a little more uptight.

Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals is all about doing the right thing for the right reasons. Forget the outcomes. Forget the happiness.

For Kant, it’s about duty. You do the good deed because you ought to, not because it’ll make you feel good. If your good deed has a selfish edge, then it doesn’t count as a truly moral act in his book.

Kant would probably laugh at the idea of selfish altruism. He’d tell you to stop patting yourself on the back and start thinking about what your duty is.

“You have to do the right thing, because it’s the right thing to do,” he’d say, maybe while sipping his tea. No exceptions. Not even if you feel all warm inside.

Kant is hardcore about intentions. You don’t get a gold star for feeding the homeless just because you get a boost of self-esteem afterward.

You’re not morally pure if your motive is wrapped in ego. For Kant, morality is based on the principle of universality—you should only act in ways that you would want everyone to act, regardless of personal gain.

If Kant had to deal with a guy on Instagram posting pictures of their charitable deeds for likes, he’d probably give him a disappointed look and mumble something about the categorical imperative.

Table 1: Mill vs. Kant – A Philosophical Smackdown

PhilosopherCore IdeaSelfish Altruism?Focus
John Stuart MillMaximize happiness for the greatest numberDoesn’t mind if the deed benefits the selfConsequences of actions
Immanuel KantAct out of duty, irrespective of the outcomeNo—morality comes from pure intentionsMoral duties and intentions

Explaining It to an Apprentice: Simple as a Kid’s Puzzle

Okay, kid. Here’s the deal: imagine you give a homeless guy a dollar. On the outside, it looks good, right? You’re helping someone. But deep down, you feel like a superhero. You’re thinking, “Man, look at me, I’m such a nice person.”

Now, there’s two ways to think about it. Mill would be like, “Who cares? You helped someone, and everyone feels happy. That’s what matters.”

So, in his world, you’re a hero.

But Kant would say, “Wait a minute. You didn’t do it because it was your duty. You did it because you wanted to feel good about yourself. That’s not pure, kid.”

So, to Kant, you’re just a guy looking for a pat on the back.

Opposing Views: Who’s Saying No to Selfish Altruism?

It’s not all sunshine and rainbows. Some folks—like Ayn Rand and Friedrich Nietzsche—would give selfish altruism a high five and call it a day.

Rand, with her Objectivism, would argue that it’s perfectly fine to act in your own self-interest. She’d say, “Selfishness is a virtue.” Nietzsche, too, wouldn’t bat an eye.

His concept of the Übermensch is all about transcending traditional morality and creating your own values.

But, then there’s the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre, who’d turn his nose up at the whole thing. According to Sartre’s existentialism, you can’t hide behind “good deeds” when they’re driven by selfishness. You’re responsible for your actions, and there’s no room for self-deception.

Scientific Breakdown: Real Talk, No Sugarcoating

Alright, let’s get real. You can’t escape biology. We’re hardwired to care about our own survival and well-being. Our brains are primed for rewards—dopamine, the brain’s favorite drug, is released when we do something good, like helping someone.

So, there’s a biological component to selfish altruism. Your body gets a high when you do something “good.” And let’s face it: if you get that warm glow, it’s hard not to consider that the outcome matters, right?

But let’s not kid ourselves. We’re still social animals. The happiness of others affects us, too. It’s not all about us. If we were truly selfish, we wouldn’t care about society.

So, the mix of self-interest and altruism is baked into the cake of humanity. You can try to separate them, but good luck doing that for long.

The Conclusion: Selfish Altruism and the Meaning of It All

So, what’s the verdict on selfish altruism? Is it morally bankrupt, or just a messy part of being human?

If I’m being honest, I’m still not sure. But one thing’s clear: it’s complicated. It’s like trying to read a Dostoevsky novel without enough coffee—there’s always something you miss, something lurking in the shadows.

But maybe that’s the point. Maybe we need to accept that we’re all trying to figure this out—swinging between selfishness and altruism, purpose and confusion.

Kant might tell you that your intentions matter most, while Mill might say the happiness you bring is what counts. In the end, maybe we just have to live with the contradictions and keep asking the questions.

Because if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that asking the question is half the battle. A

s for the rest? Well, that’s just life. And it’s never going to be neat.

Comments

Leave a Reply