Views on Egoism

 

Views on Egoism

According to LaFollette (2007), there are two main schools of thought on egoism. First, there is psychological egoism, and there is ethical egoism. The psychological egoist claims it shows that everyone always seeks to promote her own interests (LaFollette, 2007, p. 272). An enlightened ethical egoist would recognize that it is in her interest to embrace some legal and moral protections against violence and theft since these are essential means for promoting her interests (LaFollette, 2007, p. 281). My views on these two forms or egoism is a split decision. While on one hand I agree that you might not get very far in life if you didn’t make attempts at promoting yourself, and your individual interests, I also think that life has a way of equaling itself out. Not always do we need to be the center of attention and act in an egotistical way. When we conform to a more ethical standard, we understand there are factors we can try to control or follow. Generally defined as the view that one ought to do whatever and only whatever is in one's own maximum interest, benefit, advantage, or good, "ethical egoism" contrasts with (1) psychological egoism, which says that people do in fact, perhaps necessarily, act in that way; and from (2) alternative ethical theories, which claim that we have other fundamental obligations such as to act for the sake of others, even at ultimate cost to ourselves, or in ways having no necessary relation to anyone's benefit (Narveson, 2006, p. 361).

Egos in the way

I believe egoism gets in the way of a lot of the decision-making in the workplace for numerous reasons. Again, we’re all humans, and we’re preprogramed in different ways that may cause friction between others. We’re not always on the “same page” with our coworkers or leadership. As such, we take things personally, and when this happens, all bets are off. Egos have been known to get other people killed. We have a history of doing this for as long as history has been recorded. Rather than put our self-interests aside, we put them front and center for everyone to see, and we become blinded by them in our decision-making abilities.

Do Leaders Deserve More

We know that leadership can be difficult, hard, and not always fun. Leaders must do what others may not want to do or are not capable of doing it altogether. Does this mean that leaders should be provide things that followers don’t receive? Should leaders receive more pay, more benefits, or more respect? Is it ethical to give a certain group of people more because they’re in charge? I see there are more questions than answers, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Questioning our standards can lead us to more enlightenment. I happen to think that in the grand scheme of things, everyone gets something. Blue collar workers may not have a secondary degree, but they do have certifications and experience, and they’re compensated in different ways. White collar workers may have the degree and the experience, but they have to make the tough decisions that impact the entire organization. With that comes a lot of stress, as so, they should be compensated in a way that meets their needs.

Rewards for Promoting Ethics

If we’re going to give leaders more of the slice of pie, more recognition or more kudos, shouldn’t that due to their ability to promote more ethical behavior?  Doing what we want often makes us happy, while we are usually dissatisfied if we cannot do what we want (LaFollette, 2007, p. 272). Living ethically is a tough stance to take, especially when we’re surrounded by dishonesty. No one is going to make us choose, but instead, we must find our path through the ethical maze that is life.

References

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. In The practice of ethics (pp. 8-21). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Narveson, J. (2006). Ethical Egoism. In Encyclopedia of philosophy / (Vol. 3, pp. 361–363). Macmillan Reference USA.