Our modern society is based on individualism. Without individualism we’d end up just like serfs on a medieval manor. That is looking out for the “society” as opposed to oneself. The Renaissance in the western world is where we broke those chains of social obligations. Looking out for number 1, one’s family, one’s company first and foremost is my definition of egoism. One can make egoism work in a society as long as he does not induce harm to others and follow “the basic rules (laws) of society.” (Friedman 79)

Robert Hannaford uses the DC-10 example where a McDonnell-Douglas executive’s decision to rush the DC-10 into production to get ahead of its competitors, even though their own engineers had warned the management about the danger of the cargo door latch. It was the main contributing factor to the disastrous crash of the DC-10 crash in Paris airport in 1975. This was not an isolated incident. He goes into how “their chief executive officers are ‘single-mindedly almost slavishly committed to achieving’ a showing of maximum short-term profits.” (Hannaford 85) Hannaford has inadvertently pointed out that his decision on short-term profits should have been outweighed by the long-term profits. I see it as he merely made the wrong decision to help his own company. He should have had the foresight that making an inferior aircraft would not benefit his company in the long run. Thereby making it the wrong egocentric decision. How could you expect any customer to not be comfortable about buying from a company that could tarnish their own name with a place crash as well?

That brings another point. I might point out that would be an egocentrically sound decision on the airlines part. On the other side of the argument you could say that the social responsibility of the airline is to protect the many McDonnell-Douglas employees’ jobs. The airlines should choose the best decision for their company. Helping McDonnell-Douglas would be self-defeating in this case.
In arguing against the egoist position it seems to be like one can’t do good for the community and serve your own best interests to the fullest. We can make decisions with the social volunteerism and not “social responsibility” while still looking out for number one. Hannaford points out that:

Acting to fulfill social obligations is not contrary to a firm’s business interests. Business interests include community interests. Corporate decisions should center on what is in the total interest of the corporation… farmers and small businesses can decide to satisfy social obligations and not thereby threaten their livelihood or the free market.

Hannaford attempts to make fit “social obligation” into the egoist theory. The farmer or small business should not have the “social obligation” but the social choice to keep prices low for the customer. In losing his autonomy he or she cannot maintain an egoist creed.
One might present the premise:

1. An egoist is selfish by nature.
2. Selfishness goes against the general rules of society.
3. Therefore egoism goes against the rules of society thereby making it contradict it’s own principles (to follow the basic rules (laws) of society.)

James Rachels (a non-egoist) poses an argument for the egoist: “These (good deeds) are all clear cases of unselfish behavior, and if the psychological egoist thinks that such cases do not occur, then he is just mistaken.” (71) Being an egoist does not make you selfish. Merriam-Webster’s defines selfish as “concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.” The last phrase explains someone who is selfish but not necessarily an egoist. An egoist can have regard for others. In doing any good deed you get your own reward of self-satisfaction, thereby doing the deed for yourself. This would make you not selfish in turn making the first premise untrue. It would almost even be self-defeating to not perform good deeds to others in somc instances. Doing good deeds in general is something that benefits you in one way or another thereby making it an egoist choice of life.

James Rachels an avid non-egoist poses only one argument against ethical egoism. He tries to compare racism to ethical egoism. He writes:

But of each of us can ask, what is the difference between myself and others that justifies placing myself in this special category? Am I more intelligent? Do I enjoy my life more… What makes me so special?

I must bring up the primitive law of nature - survival of the fittest. Does the lion ponder: “Is the wildebeest that I’m going to kill for dinner deserve to live more than me?” Now we may like to consider ourselves above animals, but it’s innate to hold your well being over another’s. He saved this argument for last making it the only argument against ethical egoism that he did not refute himself intentionally. The only way he can seem to make ethical egoism not work is by using a shock word like racism to convince you against it.

I do agree with Rachels where he mentions that the reason that ethical egoism is not accepted by many philosophers is because it is a simple answer to almost any decision we make. Just because an argument is simple doesn’t mean that it isn’t legitimate.

The ideas of egoism may seem go against general Judeo-Christian and other major religion’s beliefs, but it’s the essence of our current free society and even when we were in the dark ages (and those countries without a free society now) the urge for the autonomy of egoism still wants to exist. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that they were the reason those centuries were so dark. A need to better oneself shall not be suppressed or disaster will ensue. The United States urge to better itself over Russia allowed us to put a man on the moon. Why not be egotistical?
Bibliography


Milton Friedman “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits”
in Deborah G. Johnson (Ed.) Ethical Issues in Engineering (NJ, Prentice Hall, 1991), 84-92.

Robert V. Hannaford “The Theoretical Twist to Irresponsibility in Business”
in Deborah G. Johnson (Ed.) Ethical Issues in Engineering (NJ, Prentice Hall, 1991), 84-92.

James Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy (3rd Ed.) (Boston, McGraw Hill Companies 1999), 70-95.