Society imposes its standards and norms of behavior on a person, following which people often become unhappy. We are taught from childhood to put the interests of other people above our own, and those who do not follow this rule are called selfish and harsh. Today, psychologists and philosophers have begun to discuss the topic of healthy egoism, which, in their opinion, should be present in every person. Examples from the life of reasonable selfishness for understanding children will be further discussed on this page "Popular about health".

What is reasonable selfishness?

First, let's define what this term means. For people who grew up in a society where any selfishness is condemned, it will be difficult to feel this fine line between two concepts - self-centeredness and altruism. To understand the definition, you should first remember who the egoists and altruists are.

Egoists are people who always put their own interests above the interests of other people. They are looking for their own benefit and self-interest in all matters, to achieve the goal they use any methods, go over their heads. Even the fact that their actions will harm other people will not stop them. They are too self-confident, their self-esteem is greatly inflated.

Altruists are the exact opposite of selfish people. Their self-esteem is so low that they are ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of others. Such people easily respond to the requests of others, they are ready to put aside their affairs, including important ones, in order to help another person.

Now, when both concepts are considered, it is easier to realize what reasonable egoism is. In simple words, this is the "golden mean" between the two extremes - egocentrism and altruism. Healthy or reasonable egoism is not a negative, but a positive quality, it should not be condemned in society. Thanks to healthy egoism, a person becomes happier.

Why healthy selfishness is good?

Reasonable selfishness is useful for a person for the following reasons:

It helps to gain adequate self-esteem;
- Thanks to this quality, a person is able to achieve many of his goals, while not harming others;
- A reasonable egoist does not miss the opportunities that open before him and is able to enjoy life to the fullest;
- Thanks to this quality, a person knows how to refuse people if he sees fit, he is not burdened by a sense of guilt, duty and obligation to others.

Does the above mean that a reasonable egoist is not able to help the people around him? No, it doesn't. Such people are able to come to the rescue, but at the same time they will not sacrifice their health, life, family interests for the sake of others.

Guided by sound egoism, these people will first weigh the pros and cons, and then make an informed decision. We can say that they assess the situation, looking far ahead. If a reasonable egoist considers that having yielded to someone today, he will gain good in the future, he will definitely do so.

Examples of reasonable selfishness from life for children

As children grow, they need to be taught a balanced view of things. You can not call them selfish if they defend their interests, while not harming others. Of course, to explain to children what reasonable egoism is, you need to use examples, preferably your own, because kids do not listen to us, they look at us.

A typical example of healthy selfishness will be shown by a mother who does not give the last thing to the child, but shares everything with him in half. In society, there will immediately be those who will say - a bad mother, children are given the best. But she looks to the future, because when the son or daughter grows up, they will understand that their mother loved them and herself. If the mother always gives everything to the children, they will grow up to be real egoists, because for them it is the norm that the mother will give the last thing so that they feel good, while sacrificing their desires and needs.

Let's consider one more example of manifestation of healthy egoism, it will be clear to children. Let's say Vasya has collected a collection of stickers on the theme of a famous cartoon, it is very dear to him. And Petya has not yet had time to collect a complete collection, he lacks 2 stickers. He asked Vasya for one missing item for his collection. A child with healthy egoism will be able to refuse Petya, because he spent a lot of time and effort searching for the right pictures. The altruist will most likely give his friend all the missing pictures. And an example of unhealthy egocentrism in this situation will be Petya, if he steals the stickers he needs from Vasya, having received a refusal, or achieves their receipt by other methods - pressure, blackmail, force.

In the described situation, there may be a different outcome - a reasonable egoist Vasya can make a different decision, give the missing pictures to a friend, if the relationship with a friend is much more important for him. A person who has a balanced view of his own "I" freely makes decisions, while he can refuse to help or help, but he does not harm anyone.

Another example - on an airplane, if it crashes, the mother must put on the oxygen mask first on herself, and then on the child. This does not mean that she wants to save herself at all costs. She saves herself to be able to help the baby.

As we found out, being selfish is bad, altruistic too, but having a balanced view of self-esteem and self-sacrifice is right. It is easier for such people to achieve goals and achieve success without destroying relationships with others, without harming them.

Ethics Apresyan Ruben Grantovich

"Reasonable Egoism"

"Reasonable Egoism"

The variability of real moral positions that we have established above, which are often united by one word "egoism", is essential for understanding egoism itself. It would be wrong to regard this analysis as a kind of intellectual trick by which universal altruistic morality, like Odysseus and his companions in the Trojan horse, sneaks into the lot of egoism in order to overcome it from within. On the contrary, in distinguishing the formulas of egoism, the possibility is revealed that egoism does not always carry evil in itself. He can be non-evil and kind to the minimum extent that is ensured by the observance of the requirement "Do no harm."

critics selfishness are of the opinion that selfishness is an immoral moral doctrine. Indeed, if the main thing for a person is to realize his personal interest, then the fulfillment of the requirements imposed from the outside is not significant for him. According to the logic, according to which personal interest is exclusive, in extreme situations an egoist can go to the violation of the most radical prohibitions - to lie, steal, denounce and kill.

But the fundamental possibility of egoism, limited by the requirement "Do no harm", indicates that the exclusivity of private interest is not an indispensable property of egoism. Supporters egoism, they notice in response to criticism that when defining egoism, it is incorrect to draw a conclusion from the question of the moral motives of behavior (personal interest or general interest) about the meaningful certainty of the actions that follow from them. After all, the personal interest of an individual may include the fulfillment of moral requirements and the promotion of the common good. Such is the logic of the so-called reasonable selfishness.

According to this ethical doctrine, although each person primarily strives to satisfy personal needs and interests, among personal needs and interests there must be those whose satisfaction not only does not contradict the interests of other people, but also contributes to the common good. Such are reasonable or rightly understood (by the individual) interests. This concept was expressed already in antiquity (its elements can be found in Aristotle and Epicurus), but it was widely developed in modern times, as a component of various social and moral teachings of the 17th-18th centuries, as well as the 19th century.

As shown by Hobbes, Mandeville, A. Smith, Helvetius, N.G. Chernyshevsky, selfishness is an essential motive for economic and political activity, an important factor in social life. Egoism as a social quality of a person is determined by the nature of such social relations, which are based on utility. Expressing the “genuine” and “reasonable” interests of a person (hiddenly representing a common interest), it turns out to be fruitful, since it contributes to the common good. And the general interest does not exist separately from private interests; moreover, it is composed of a variety of private interests. So a person who intelligently and successfully realizes his own interest also contributes to the good of other people, the good of the whole.

This doctrine has a well-defined economic basis: with the development of commodity-money relations and their inherent forms of division of labor, any private activity focused on the creation of competitive goods and services and, consequently, on the public recognition of these results, turns out to be socially useful. This can be expressed in another way: in a free market, an autonomous and sovereign individual satisfies mine private interest only as a subject of activity or the owner of goods and services that satisfy the interests others individuals; in other words, entering into a relationship of mutual use.

Schematically, this can be expressed as follows: N owns the goods t, that the individual needs M, possessing a commodity t', constituting the subject of need N. Accordingly interest N satisfied provided that he provides M the object of his needs and thereby contributes to the satisfaction of his interest. Therefore, in the interest N promotion of interest M, for it is a condition for the satisfaction of his own interest.

These are, as we saw (in Topic 22), such relations that, regulated by the principle of equality of forces or the corresponding legal provisions, objectively limit egocentrism. In a broad sense, the principle of mutual use (mutual usefulness) allows you to reconcile conflicting private interests. Thus, the egoist receives a value basis for recognizing the significance, in addition to his own, of another private interest without violating the priority of his own interest. So the subject of a private interest of a person is also the implementation of the system of rules of the community and thereby maintaining its integrity. This suggests the conclusion that within the framework of such a pragmatically, i.e., for the benefit, success and efficiency, oriented activity, limited egoism, firstly, let's say, secondly, is necessary. In the case of rejection of egoism, the relationship ceases to be a relationship of mutual utility. Economic relations cannot be built otherwise than relations of utility, in particular, mutual utility. Otherwise, economic efforts are doomed to failure.

However, the theorists of rational egoism saw the true expression of social morality in the social ties and dependencies that arise within and about economic activity. This is indeed the basis of a certain type of social discipline. However, certain - in the proper sense of the word, that is, limited, relevant in certain areas of social life. Reasonably selfish teachings overlook the fact that in a free market people are fully dependent on each other only as economic agents, as producers of goods and services. However, as private individuals, as bearers of private interests, they are completely isolated from each other.

Strictly speaking, the concept of rational egoism assumes that we are talking about an individual involved in a particular community and, therefore, included in a kind of "social contract" - as a system of mutual rights and obligations. The "social contract" acts as if that highest (and general) standard which elevates the individual above the concreteness of his everyday situations. However, the real society is much more complicated. It is not holistic. It is internally contradictory. It is impossible to establish uniform principles of rationality in it (even in the limited first five meanings of this word). In a real society, various groups and communities coexist, in particular competing ones, including “shadow” and criminal ones. At the same time, an autonomous personality is potentially unlimited alienated from other people both psychologically and socially and morally. All this creates immediate conditions for the “falling out” of the personality from the influence of various restraining regulatory systems and, consequently, for the “openness” of private interest to a variety of, including anti-social and immoral actions that cannot be explained through an indication of the “unreasonableness” of private interest and the need to replace it with a "reasonable" private interest.

The difficult question that arises in this connection concerns possible motives for being a reasonable, even a reasonable egoist. A typical example is ticketless travel on public transport. From a legal point of view, the passenger and the transport company (or municipal government, etc., depending on who owns the public transport) are supposed to be in a certain contractual relationship, according to which the passenger acquires the right to use the fare, accepting the obligation to pay for the fare . Quite often, passengers use the fare without paying for it. The situation when someone uses the results of other people's efforts, without offering anything in return, occurs not only in public transport. However, ticketless travel is a typical case of such a situation. Therefore, in moral and legal philosophy, this situation and the collisions that arise in connection with it are called the “free rider problem”.

This problem, first elucidated by Hobbes and conceptualized in our time by Rawls, is as follows. In conditions when collective goods are created by the efforts of many individuals, the non-participation of one individual in this process is really insignificant. And vice versa, if collective efforts were not made, even decisive actions of one would not bring any result. While "free-riding" by one or more (passengers) does not directly harm the community, it undermines cooperative relationships. From a mercantile point of view, free-riding can be perceived as an individually justified and, therefore, rational line of behavior. From a broader point of view, taking into account the advantages of cooperation, the selfish point of view can recommend cooperation as rational behavior. (Obviously, this is a reasonable egoistic point of view). As we can see, at different levels of evaluation of the same behavior, the criteria of rationality turn out to be different.

In general, it should be said that, as a rationale for morality, rational egoistic concepts are only a refined form of the apology of individualism. Not without reason, having turned out to be nothing more than a curious episode in the history of philosophical and ethical thought, they reveal an amazing vitality in everyday consciousness - as a certain type of moral worldview that matures and is affirmed within the framework of a pragmatic frame of mind in morality. The initial premise of reasonable egoism contains two theses: a) striving for my own benefit, I contribute to the benefit of other people, the benefit of society, b) since good is benefit, then, striving for my own benefit, I contribute to the development of morality. In practice, the rationally egoistic attitude is expressed in the fact that the individual chooses his own good as goals in “firm confidence” that this is exactly what meets the requirements of morality. The principle of utility commands everyone to strive for the best results and proceed from the fact that utility, efficiency, and success are the highest values. In the rationally egoistic version, this principle also receives an ethical content, it is, as it were, sanctioned on behalf of reason and morality. But the question of how private benefit contributes to the common good remains open as a practical question.

The same applies to the question of procedures that certify the coincidence of private and general interests and allow checking the private interest for its correspondence to the general interest. True, the general interest is always represented in one way or another through various private interests. It can be assumed that the social and cultural progress of mankind is manifested in the fact that the private interests of an increasing number of people approach or coincide with the general interest. However, the rapprochement of general and private interests is not the subject and result of a lofty choice or good intention, as the enlighteners and utilitarians believed. This is the process of formation of such a social order, unfolding in history, in which the satisfaction of the general interest is carried out through the activities of people pursuing their private interests.

Just as the exclusive reliance on “healthy” self-love leads in practice to an apology for selfishness, so the desire for a strong-willed assertion of the common interest as the real interest of all members of society leads to a hidden preferential satisfaction of the interests of that social group that proclaims its goal to care for the common interest, and ... to the equal poverty of the majority of the people who are the subject of this concern. Although in the Enlightenment reasonable egoism appears as a doctrine designed to liberate a person, already in the middle of the last century it began to be perceived as a peculiar form of curbing and regulating the individual will. F.M. Dostoevsky, as already noted, through the mouth of his unfortunate hero in Notes from the Underground, asked about the real meaning of bringing any act of a person under reasonable grounds. It is worth thinking about the requirements that are supposed to be an expression of "reasonableness", as the possibility of reducing the entire variety of personal manifestations to some bare, soulless standard becomes obvious. Dostoevsky also noticed the psychological vulnerability of relying on the rationalization of selfish aspirations: in the teaching of rational egoistic morality, the peculiarity of moral thinking as thinking is individual and preferably unaccountable; one has only to point to the "rules of reason" and they will be rejected from the mere "feeling of personality", from the spirit of contradiction, from the desire to determine for oneself what is useful and necessary. Other aspects that are unexpected for enlightenment, or romantic, rationalism in the problem of "reasonableness" are revealed by philosophers of our time, who by no means claim to be rationalism in its classical versions: what the inventive and sophisticated human mind has not thought of. Take, for example, such an indispensable element of the state as a system of punishment (not necessarily in such an extensive form as the Gulag, or in such a rationalized form as Nazi concentration camps-crematoria), - even in the most civilized modern prison, there are enough “thought-out abominable trifles”, testifying to such a variety in the applications of the human mind, which suggests restraint and criticality in exalting the products of the mind only on the grounds that they are products of the mind.

In an explicit or implicit form, the doctrine of enlightened egoism presupposed a fundamental coincidence of people's interests due to the unity of human nature. However, the idea of ​​the unity of human nature turns out to be speculative in explaining those cases where the implementation of the interests of various individuals is associated with the achievement of a certain good that cannot be shared (for example, in a situation where several people are included in a competition for a scholarship to study at a university, or two firms with the same product tend to penetrate the same regional market). Neither reliance on mutual benevolence, nor reliance on wise legislation or sensible organization of affairs will contribute to the resolution of a conflict of interest.

This text is an introductory piece.

18. Selfishness The point of view according to which any person should act only in his own interests. Kevin Bacon played such an egomaniac in The Invisible Man. Egoists are of two types - stupid and reasonable. The difference between them lies primarily in the fact that

IS EGOISM SUCCESSFUL? In a sense, everyone lives a double life - one in a narrower circle, the other in a wider circle. A narrow circle includes people with whom we come into contact in everyday life: family, friends, acquaintances, employees. A wide circle - the whole society of our country, in

Egoism The Dictionary of Foreign Words provides the following explanation of the word “egoism”: the French word comes from the Latin ego, meaning “I”. Egoism is selfishness, that is, preference for personal interests over the interests of other people, a tendency to

REASONABLE S. M. That's what I said to my friend S. M. The merit of dialectics. Ultimately, the merit of dialectics is that it is forced to come to the conclusion that everything in the world is stupidity. Girl. Reminiscent of a transparent-cold shallow water stretching from where the eye can see.Early

Reasonable Skepticism in Life and Philosophy Historians of philosophy of different orientations and epochs discussed all sorts of lines, tendencies and directions of the philosophical process. Academic disputes over such differences are known to anyone familiar with the main milestones of development.

"SMART" SUPERMARKET The consumer in the near future may find himself in a supermarket divided into lines of so-called computerized shelves. On the edge of the shelves, instead of paper labels with prices for canned food or towels, there will be liquid crystal displays.

7.3.4. Theoretical Intelligent Design William Dembski, the most prolific DG theorist, argues that we arrive at the conclusion that there is design through three successive steps in an intuitive reasoning process he calls the "explanatory filter." Meeting with

Egoism As already noted, egoism (from Latin ego - I) is a life position, according to which the satisfaction of personal interest is considered as the highest good and, accordingly, everyone should strive only for the maximum satisfaction of their

"Reasonable egoism" The variability of real moral positions that we have established above, which are often united by one word "egoism", is essential for understanding egoism itself. It would be wrong to regard this analysis as a kind of intellectual

CRITERION 3 INTELLIGENT PROCESS REQUIRES ADDITIONAL ENERGY Although it is clear that intelligent processes are triggered by difference (at the simplest level), and that difference is not energy and usually does not contain energy, it is still necessary to discuss the energetics of an intelligent process, because

Egoism EgoismEgoism is our personal enemy, which is also reflected at the level of society. An egoist is one who considers himself not only the center of the universe, but also the most important of all that exists in it. Such a person ignores the needs and sorrows of others because

Homo sapiens: the creation of language and rock paintings A decisive stage in the development of man is coming. This is a Cro-Magnon man, a Reasonable Man, similar to us in appearance and growth. As a whole, bodily evolution has ended, the evolution of social life begins - a clan, a tribe ...

2.4.2. On the Genetics of the Homo sapiens species in general In the biosphere of the planet Earth there are biological species in which any genetically healthy individual - by the mere fact of his birth in this species - has already taken place as a full-fledged representative of this species. An example of this is mosquitoes

Selfishness Selfishness means “a person’s immense love for himself, leading to boundless concern for his own interests and complete indifference to other people.” The opposite of selfishness is altruism: “satisfaction from doing good to others, even to the detriment of oneself”,

Reasonable (Raisonnable) Corresponding to practical reason, to use the expression of Kant, or, as I would prefer to say, our desire to live in accordance with reason (homologoumen?s). It is easy to see that this desire always implies something other than reason,

Selfishness (?goisme) Not love for oneself, but the inability to love anyone else, or the ability to love another solely for one's own good. That is why I consider selfishness one of the deadly sins (self-love, in my opinion, is rather a virtue) and the fundamental basis

Reasonable egoism is a term often used in the last years of the nineteenth century to denote a philosophical and ethical position that establishes for each subject the fundamental priority of the subject's personal interests over any other interests, be it public interests or the interests of other subjects.

The need for a separate term is apparently due to the negative semantic connotation traditionally associated with the term "egoism". If an egoist (without the qualifying word “reasonable”) is often understood as a person who thinks only of himself and / or neglects the interests of other people, then supporters of “reasonable egoism” usually argue that such neglect, for a number of reasons, is simply unprofitable for the neglectful and, therefore, it is not selfishness (in the form of the priority of personal interests over any others), but only a manifestation of short-sightedness or even stupidity. Reasonable selfishness in the everyday sense is the ability to live in one's own interests, without contradicting the interests of others.

The concept of rational egoism began to take shape in modern times, the first discussions on this topic are already found in the works of Spinoza and Helvetius, but it was presented in full only in Chernyshevsky's novel What Is To Be Done? In the 20th century, the ideas of rational selfishness are revived by Ayn Rand in the collection of essays The Virtue of Selfishness, the story Hymn, and the novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. In the philosophy of Ayn Rand, rational egoism is inseparable from rationalism in thinking and objectivism in ethics. Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden also dealt with rational egoism.

The concept of "reasonable egoism". This concept emphasizes that the social responsibility of business is simply “good business” because it helps to reduce long-term profit losses. By implementing social programs, the corporation reduces its current profits, but in the long run creates a favorable social environment for its employees and territories of its activities, while creating conditions for the stability of its own profits. This concept fits into the theory of rational behavior of economic agents.

The essence of reasonable selfishness is that in the economy it is customary to consider opportunity costs when doing business. If they are higher, then the case is not being conducted, because. you can, for example, invest your resources in another business with greater profit. The key word is benefit. For the economy and business, this is normal.

But as for the sphere of human relations, the principle of profit (the leading principle of economics) turns people into animals and devalues ​​the essence of human life. Relationships in line with reasonable egoism are guided by the assessment of the benefits from various relationships with people and the choice of the most beneficial relationship. Any mercy, manifestation of selfless love, even true charity with the so-called. reasonable egoist - meaningless. Only mercy, philanthropy, charity for the sake of PR, receiving benefits, and various posts make sense.

Another mistake of reasonable egoism is the equating of good and good. This is at least not reasonable. Those. rational egoism contradicts itself.

Reasonable selfishness is the ability to find a balance between the needs of people and their own capabilities.

Reasonable egoism is characterized by a greater understanding of life, and this is a more subtle kind of egoism. It can also be directed to the material, but the way of obtaining or achieving is more reasonable and less obsessed with "I, me, mine." Such people have an understanding of what this obsession leads to, and they see and use more subtle ways to get what they want, which brings less suffering to themselves and others. Such people are more reasonable (ethical) and less selfish, they do not go over the heads of others or through, do not commit violence of any kind and are inclined to honest cooperation and exchange, taking into account the interests of all with whom they deal.

The theory of rational egoism originates from the philosophical constructions of such outstanding thinkers of the 17th century as Locke, Hobbes, Puffendorf, Grotius. The notion of a "lonely Robinson" who had unlimited freedom in his natural state and exchanged this natural freedom for social rights and obligations was brought to life by a new mode of activity and management and corresponded to the position of the individual in an industrial society, where everyone owned some kind of property (let even only for their own labor force), i.e. acted as a private owner and, consequently, counted on himself, his own sound judgment about the world and his own decision. He proceeded from his own interests, and they could not be discounted in any way, since the new type of economy, primarily industrial production, is based on the principle of material interest.

This new social situation was reflected in the ideas of the enlighteners about man as a natural being, all the properties of which, including personal interest, are determined by nature. Indeed, in accordance with their bodily essence, everyone seeks to receive pleasure and avoid suffering, which is associated with self-love, or self-love, based on the most important of the instincts - the instinct of self-preservation. This is how everyone argues, including Rousseau, although he somewhat stands out from the general line of reasoning, recognizing, along with reasonable egoism, also altruism. But even he quite often refers to self-love: The source of our passions, the beginning and foundation of all others, the only passion that is born with a person and never leaves him while he is alive, is self-love; this passion is original, innate, preceding every other: all others are in a certain sense only its modifications ... Love for oneself is always suitable and always in accordance with the order of things; since everyone is entrusted first of all with his own self-preservation, then the first and most important of his concerns is - and should be - precisely this constant concern for self-preservation, and how could we take care of him if we did not see this as our main interest? .

So, each individual in all his actions proceeds from self-love. But, being enlightened by the light of reason, he begins to understand that if he thinks only of himself and achieves everything only for himself personally, he will face a huge number of difficulties, primarily because everyone wants the same thing - to satisfy their needs, means for which there is still very little. Therefore, people gradually come to the conclusion that it makes sense to limit oneself to some extent; this is done not at all out of love for others, but out of love for oneself; therefore, we are not talking about altruism, but about reasonable egoism, but such a feeling is the guarantor of a calm and normal life together. 18th century makes adjustments to these views. Firstly, they concern common sense: common sense pushes to comply with the requirements of reasonable egoism, because without taking into account the interests of other members of society, without compromises with them, it is impossible to build a normal daily life, it is impossible to ensure the smooth functioning of the economic system. An independent individual relying on himself, the owner, comes to this conclusion on his own precisely because he is endowed with common sense.

Another addition concerns the development of the principles of civil society (which will be discussed later). And the last concerns the rules of education. On this path, some disagreements arise among those who developed the theory of education, primarily between Helvetius and Rousseau. Democracy and humanism equally characterize their concepts of education: both are convinced that it is necessary to provide all people with equal opportunities for education, as a result of which everyone can become a virtuous and enlightened member of society. Asserting natural equality, Helvetius, however, begins to prove that all the abilities and gifts of people are absolutely the same by nature, and only education creates differences between them, and chance plays a huge role. Precisely for the reason that chance interferes with all plans, the results often turn out to be quite different from what a person originally intended. Our life, Helvetius is convinced, often depends on the most insignificant accidents, but since we do not know them, it seems to us that we owe all our properties only to nature, but this is not so.

Rousseau, unlike Helvetius, did not attach such importance to chance, he did not insist on absolute natural identity. On the contrary, in his opinion, people by nature have different inclinations. However, what comes out of a person is also largely determined by upbringing. Rousseau was the first to single out different age periods in a child's life; in each period, one particular educational influence is perceived most fruitfully. So, in the first period of life, one must develop physical inclinations, then feelings, then mental abilities, and finally moral concepts. Rousseau urged educators to listen to the voice of nature, not to force the nature of the child, to treat him as a full-fledged person. Thanks to the criticism of the previous scholastic methods of education, thanks to the installation on the laws of nature and the detailed study of the principles of "natural education" (as we see, not only religion is "natural" in Rousseau - education is also "natural") Rousseau was able to create a new direction of science - pedagogy and provided a huge impact on many thinkers who adhere to it (on L.N. Tolstoy, J.V. Goethe, I. Pestalozzi, R. Rolland).

When we consider the upbringing of a person from the point of view that was so important for the French Enlightenment, namely, rational egoism, one cannot fail to notice certain paradoxes that are found in almost everyone, but mainly in Helvetius. He seems to be moving in line with general ideas about selfishness and personal interest, but brings his thoughts to paradoxical conclusions. First, he interprets self-interest as material gain. Secondly, Helvetius reduces all the phenomena of human life, all its events to a personal interest understood in this way. Thus, he turns out to be the founder of utilitarianism. Love and friendship, the desire for power and the principles of the social contract, even morality - everything is reduced by Helvetius to personal interest. So, honesty we call the habit of everyone to do useful things for him.

When I, say, cry for a dead friend, in reality I cry not about him, but about myself, because without him I will have no one to talk to about myself, get help. Of course, one cannot agree with all the utilitarian conclusions of Helvetius, one cannot reduce all the feelings of a person, all types of his activity to benefit or to the desire to receive benefits. The observance of moral precepts, for example, causes harm to the individual rather than brings benefits - morality has nothing to do with benefit. The relationship of people in the field of artistic creativity also cannot be described in terms of utilitarianism. Similar objections were heard against Helvetius already in his time, and not only from enemies, but also from friends. Thus, Diderot asked what profit Helvetius himself was pursuing when he created in 1758 the book “On the Mind” (where the concept of utilitarianism was first outlined): after all, it was immediately condemned to burning, and the author had to renounce it three times, and even after he feared that he would be forced (like La Mettrie) to emigrate from France. But Helvetius should have foreseen all this in advance, and yet he did what he did. Moreover, immediately after the tragedy, Helvetius began to write a new book, developing the ideas of the first. In this regard, Diderot remarks that one cannot reduce everything to physical pleasures and material gain, and that personally he is often ready to prefer the most severe attack of gout to the slightest contempt for himself.

And yet it is impossible not to admit that Helvetius was right on at least one issue - personal interest, and material interest, asserts itself in the sphere of material production, in the sphere of the economy. Common sense forces us to recognize here the interest of each of its participants, and the lack of common sense, the requirement to abandon oneself and sacrifice oneself supposedly for the interests of the whole, entails the strengthening of the totalitarian aspirations of the state, as well as chaos in the economy. The justification of common sense in this area turns into a defense of the interests of the individual as an owner, and this is exactly what was and is still being blamed on Helvetius. Meanwhile, the new way of managing is based precisely on such an independent subject, guided by his own common sense and responsible for his decisions - the subject of property and rights.

Over the past decades, we have become so accustomed to denying private property, so accustomed to justifying our actions with selflessness and enthusiasm, that we have almost lost our common sense. Nevertheless, private property and private interest are necessary attributes of an industrial civilization, the content of which is not limited to class interactions alone.

Of course, one should not idealize the market relations that characterize this civilization. But the same market, expanding the boundaries of supply and demand, contributing to an increase in social wealth, really creates the ground for the spiritual development of members of society, for the liberation of the individual from the clutches of unfreedom.

In this regard, it should be noted that the task of rethinking those concepts that were previously assessed only as negative is long overdue. Thus, it is necessary to understand private property not only as the property of the exploiter, but also as the property of a private individual who freely disposes of it, freely decides how to act, and relies on his own sound judgment. At the same time, it is impossible not to take into account that the complex relationship between the owners of the means of production and the owners of their own labor force is currently being significantly transformed due to the fact that the increase in surplus value is increasingly taking place not due to the appropriation of a share of someone else's labor, but due to an increase in labor productivity. , development of computer facilities, technical inventions, discoveries, etc. The strengthening of democratic tendencies also has an important influence here.

The problem of private property today requires a special study; here we can only emphasize once again that, defending private interest, Helvetius defended the individual as an owner, as an equal participant in industrial production and a member of the "social contract, born and raised on the basis of democratic transformations. The question of the relationship between individual and public interests leads us to the question about rational selfishness and the social contract.

What is intelligent selfishness? From early childhood, a person is taught to subordinate his desires to ever-increasing duties.

I want to go for a walk, but I need to help around the house, I want to lie on the couch and read - but you can’t think only about yourself.

First of all, you need to think about the welfare of those around you and your native country - this was the basis of education in Soviet society.

Times are changing and more and more people are putting their own interests first.

Conservatives believe that this is impossible and the world is heading into the abyss. But let's try to figure out if everything is really so bad?

Difference Between Egoism and Egocentrism

Many people confuse these two concepts, however, these are two completely different styles of behavior. When a small child is just beginning to learn about the world around him, he thinks that the world revolves around him, and he is the center of the universe.

They feed him when he wants, create comfortable conditions for life, everyone is happy for him and always ready to help. But over time, parents begin to teach the baby that everyone has their own interests and you need to respect the feelings of others.

If at the age of one and a half years it is difficult for children to share toys, by the age of three they are able to consciously share and over time they learn the art of communication better, socialize, learning to take into account the interests of the people around them. As the saying goes, "behave yourself".

Young children are self-centered. It is not out of harm that they require attention, affection and care, sometimes quite infringing on the interests of their closest relatives.

They just do not understand that everyone has their own desires, which must be reckoned with. They do not even suspect that mom wants to relax, and not play the same game for the hundredth time. This is egocentrism.

In a normal child, egocentrism gradually fades away and by the age of six or seven it is practically gone.

But if a little man does not receive affection and love for him not for some achievements, but only because he exists, his egocentrism will certainly emerge already in adulthood. An egocentric person has a high self-esteem.

For example, he can easily be late or not come at all to a prearranged meeting. He tries to take the best place everywhere and pays a lot of attention to this.

Such a person builds a career, regardless of the fate of his competitors. A baby still lives in it, who believes that everything in the world is subject to his will. Therefore, he sincerely does not understand why he is offended.

Lack of attention in childhood can lead to another extreme. A person will have too low self-esteem and self-doubt.

He will yield to everyone, he will not be able to say “no”, he will not strive for something more than others can easily take advantage of.

Of course, egocentrism in adulthood requires a lot of work on oneself. This form of egoism is not healthy, but even egocentrism can be remade into - that is, one that will benefit oneself and others.

We charge with optimism!

Russian women often try to do everything for the sake of their loved ones, not sparing themselves. For example, mothers of already grown children devote all their time to work and housework.

From morning to evening they work at the workplace, and when they return home, they immediately begin to prepare dinner and do household chores. And as they say, you can’t do all the things, and by the end of the day they go to bed exhausted, so that tomorrow they can do everything all over again.

As a result, after a couple of years of living in the "work-home" rhythm, women develop depression, apathy and complete disappointment in life.

The situation is the same with the fathers of the family: from morning to night at work, and in the evening there is no strength for anything. As a result, adults sacrifice their "wants" to duties. But at least occasionally you need to allow yourself to do what you want!

If a person always does only what is "needed", then, in the end, his will to live disappears, apathy begins, and he cannot cope with his duties - a vicious circle.

Don't forget to do something for yourself. Often it is our hobbies, hobbies, various activities that give us the will to live.

How does this family situation affect children?

Unfortunately, "tortured" parents are not the best example for a child. Watching how mom and dad mechanically perform their duties, not enjoying life at all, the child will not learn to enjoy every day.

And it happens even worse: the mother constantly repeats that life has laid for the benefit of the children and they become ashamed. They feel guilty for taking away all their free time from their parents.

Then everything gets out of hand. A child who studied well just to please his parents abandons his studies.

It seems that he does everything out of spite: he walks in boots on the floor just washed by his mother, does not do his homework, eats only sweets, and demonstratively sets aside a plate of carefully prepared soup.

Parents are perplexed, because they do everything for the good of the child, and he does not feel gratitude at all.

In order not to go to extremes, remember your interests and do not infringe on them. Allow yourself to be selfish sometimes - believe me, this is quite reasonable, and sometimes it even helps to maintain good relations in the family!

Altruism and selfishness

Altruism is considered the opposite of selfishness. - this is a person who lives for the sake of others, sacrifices himself. But often selfishness and altruism are two sides of the same coin.

A mother who is overprotective of her grown son. He is an adult and should take care of himself. But his mother still cooks for him, feeds him almost from a spoon, constantly calls and worries about any delay at work. "I sacrifice myself for the good of a loved one," she says.

In fact, her concern had long since become straining, suffocating, and unnecessary. The root of this guardianship is selfishness. The mother is sure that without her the son is not capable of anything, she has too high an opinion of herself.

People who received less attention in childhood also often fall into these extremes and become selfish or altruistic, which once again confirms the relationship between these two concepts.

So how do you find the edge of reasonable egoism - one that will benefit everyone, and not harm. Define the boundaries of your interests and do not let others infringe on them. And, on the other hand, do not infringe on the boundaries of other people.

Do not forget to take time for yourself, praise yourself for your achievements, enjoy life, do what you love. Find the golden mean of your self-esteem and don't let anyone lower the bar..

For example, a friend asks you to borrow some money. You refuse, because you know him as a good, but optional person.

A friend calls you an egoist. Do not pay attention, often people try to manipulate in this way, but you need to be able to protect your interests.

At the same time, do not violate the boundaries of others. Do not forget that the best gift to your loved ones and society will be a cheerful, happy and enterprising person!

The word "egoist" in our society is considered abusive, because since childhood, that you can’t think only about yourself, but you need to share with others and give in. With age, the attitude that selfishness is bad becomes more and more strengthened in the mind of the child, because both parents and teachers tell him that respectable people take care of the needs and comfort of others and work for the good of society, and do not live by their own interests. Therefore, it is natural that the majority of adult men and women do not want to appear selfish in the eyes of society and often, to the detriment of their own interests, realize the desires of others.

Altruistic behavior, compliance and sacrificing one's own interests for the sake of the needs of others are encouraged by public opinion, so many ordinary citizens are confident that selfishness is a character trait that needs to be eradicated. Meanwhile, more and more psychologists and psychotherapists are changing their minds towards egoism and claim that being an egoist is absolutely normal for every mentally healthy person. Connoisseurs of human souls tend to think that people should not suppress their selfish aspirations and not sacrifice their own needs for the sake of others, but nevertheless, selfishness must be "reasonable". Let's try to figure out, in fact, selfishness - is it bad or good? And what is the difference between reasonable egoism and not reasonable?

Who are the egoists?

Before considering the question of whether selfishness is a bad or a good character trait, it is necessary to determine who the egoists are. The word in the dictionary egoism is interpreted as a character trait that forms a type of behavior in which a person is aimed at satisfying his own needs and needs and puts his own interests above the interests of others. That is, egoists are people who live as they want and do what they want, without taking into account the desires of others. Egoism in the common people is often confused with egocentrism, but in fact these concepts are not identical.

Egocentrism is characterized by a person's inability to perceive any opinion that differs from his point of view. Based on this definition, we can conclude that egocentrism can be inherent in an egoist, but not always, because many people who put their interests above the needs of others can still listen to others, perceive their arguments, admit mistakes and change their point of view.

Complete the opposite of selfishness is altruism - the willingness to do selfless acts for the benefit of other people, without taking into account personal interests and desires. Altruism and selfishness are, at first glance, complete opposites, however, in fact, both of these character traits are inherent in almost all people to one degree or another, since in some situations even the most kind and disinterested can behave selfishly, and in some cases they can even be selfish. capable of altruistic deeds.

Is selfishness good or bad?

Nature is designed in such a way that everything living beings are primarily guided by instincts aimed at survival and the preservation of the species, and this rule is no exception. Both animals and people instinctively strive to realize their own needs and are ready to compete with representatives of their own and other species for the right to possess resources. So selfishness is an innate trait of a person's character, since it is he who allows you to realize the needs associated with the provision of life and the establishment of one's own status in society.

However, people are a social species, and in isolation from society, the development of a person's personality is impossible. It was in order to make the living of each individual in society comfortable that the so-called social contracts were formed - unwritten rules and norms that regulate the interaction of members of society with each other. Altruism, mutual assistance, guardianship and protection of the weakest, and conflict resolution through compromise are important components of the social contract. in human society, as they provide a comfortable and safe life for each member of society individually.

Based on the foregoing, it becomes clear that selfish behavior is the norm for a person, however, each member of society must restrain his selfish impulses, to . And the most important thing for every person is to be able to find a balance between egoism and altruism in such a way as to be able to realize their needs and goals and at the same time not infringe on others.

Distortions in behavior, both in the direction of egoism and altruism, are always fraught with negative consequences for the individual.. A person who always adheres to a selfish line of behavior and infringes on the interests of others, sooner or later runs the risk of becoming an outcast in society and losing all friends and relatives, since no one will tolerate a notorious egoist for a long time. And people who are always ready to give up their own interests for the sake of others can very quickly turn out to be, as they will begin to use their kindness without giving anything in return. A striking example of what excessive altruism leads to is women who are in relationships with tyrants, alcoholics and drug addicts. These women spend their time and vitality trying to please their partner and save him, but in the end they have only a crippled psyche and undermined physical health.

It's obvious that egoism is a necessary character trait for every person, since it is he who allows people to realize their needs, achieve your goals and find your happiness. But still, each person must behave in such a way that, while satisfying his desires, he does not infringe on other members of society. And it is precisely this line of behavior that modern psychologists call rational egoism.

What is intelligent selfishness?

According to psychologists, reasonable egoism is such a strategy of behavior in which a person makes active efforts to self-development and achieve his goals, without prejudice to the interests of others and without coming into conflict with society. And the main differences between reasonable egoism and excessive are the following:

Reasonable egoism is an ideal balance between innate egoism and altruism acquired in the process of socialization. And more and more psychologists recommend that their clients develop precisely this strategy of behavior, and not deny their own egoism. According to experts, reasonable egoism is precisely the form of thinking and behavior that allows a person to live in harmony with himself and the world around him, realize his goals and find his place in society.