Without Self-Interest There Is No Basis For Individual Rights

Philosophers have debated selfishness versus some form of altruism for millennia.

The actual term “altruism” was coined by French Philosopher Auguste Comte in the 19^th century (from the French altrusime, derived from the Latin alter for “other”).

Altruism, broadly interpreted, suggests that morality is based on and driven only by doing something that benefits someone else—the “other.” If you work hard to build a better life for yourself, that is, at best, amoral, and possibly immoral, but sacrificing your interests to the interests of others is a sign of morality.

An ethic of self-interest on the other hand is based on egoism, the idea that your life matters in and of itself and the actions you take to preserve and improve that life are not only moral, but the moral purpose of life. The American founding reflects this idea:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Despite this proclamation by the Founders of the United States, and the powerful, prosperous, free and capitalist society it spawned, people sometimes struggle with the term “selfishness.” We have been taught almost since birth to share or serve others; that selfishness is somehow narrow and immoral. That you need to serve something that is “greater than self.”

At the same time, we have been taught that freedom matters. That “it’s a free country.”

Altruism and freedom, however, are incompatible. The former works without pause to destroy the latter.

If selflessness is the standard, then there is no purpose for individual rights. If the individual has no value, there are no rights to be recognized or protected. This is the premise of altruism, and, not coincidentally, all forms of collectivism, whether socialism, communism, fascism, racism, or slavery or any other group-oriented ism.

If the individual’s value matters, however, then the self has value and protecting the rights and self-interest of the individual matters. As we are all human, it also requires we recognize the equal rights of others to their own lives and liberty.

Any creed that attempts to raise the value of the group, the collective, the state, the nation above the individual has self-interest and individual liberty squarely in its sights. If it is the “other” the matters, then any means that violates the individual is a moral means, because the individual doesn’t matter, only the collective matters.

Those who support the altruist view understand this only too well. That’s why they use selfishness as a slander and constantly attack those things and institutions, such as property rights, that are essential to protecting the rights of the individual.

The immorality of altruism stands in complete opposition to freedom and its moral requirements of self-interest and individual rights. In fact, human beings, by their nature, must take self-interested, goal-directed action just to survive, let alone prosper or flourish. To oppose self-interest is to oppose humanity.

Those who love liberty and understand it is essential for human success must also embrace the morality of self-interest. Otherwise, their beliefs have no moral support.