Virtue Theory and the Self

Thoughts on Addressing Ethical Egoism in Our Students

______________________________________________________________________

Dan Putman

Students tend to be relativists. Several excellent papers have discussed why this is so and how philosophy instructors can address that fact. But large numbers of students also tend to be egoists in that they claim that the ego is the only logically justifiable foundation for moral action. Sometimes students are psychological egoists, i.e., they argue that people are always innately self-serving, but my experience has been that more often than not they are ethical egoists. The arguments for psychological egoism have such severe logical and semantic flaws that students will admit that, yes, at times, people can be primarily other-directed. However, the interesting (and, frankly, scary) part is that then so many students will say that they should not be, i.e., the logic of ethics has no better foundation than self-aggrandizement of some sort. In this paper I want to survey briefly four of the reasons why students tend to be ethical egoists and then spend the majority of the paper discussing the relationship of virtue ethics to egoism in the classroom. I have found virtue theory the most effective way to help students appreciate the value of non-egoistic ethical viewpoints.

The reasons that students tend to be egoists are quite straightforward. First is the identity issue. Most college students do not have a secure identity. In fact, part of going to college for most of them is to find out what they are good at and what they can do with their lives. Given that so many students are looking for a way to structure their lives, the logic of an ethical theory which appeals to the self as the foundation for normative action makes enormous sense. Ayn Rand may appear cruel and thoughtless to many but students often like her logic about the "self" being the only source of dignity and worth. Egoism promotes self-recognition as the source of action and this appeals to those students whose "self" is in a state of flux and who often feel they deserve a little recognition.

Second is the fact that most college students have relatively few responsibilities outside of themselves. The responsibility factor can vividly stand out at times in the classroom with the most marked contrast being between married or older students and traditional age students. Students who also happen to be parents find egoism far less appealing. Older students who have career or job responsibilities find egoism too narrow. Even those actively engaged in business, whom one would think might lean toward egoism, often have an appreciation of rights, obligations and a greater good lacking in younger students. Without the experience of responsibility for something other than their own egos, students have a limited experiential base for appreciating other normative views.

Third is the barrage of media and advertising promoting egoism. From little on, our students are bombarded by the claim that being an egoistic consumer is what life is about. Sports heroes are the supreme egoists and wearing the right jeans or shoes is pitched as the way to be a unique individual. Combined with the need to establish an identity, this social pressure toward egoism is an absurdly simple-minded but incredibly powerful molder of young people.

Fourth, egoism is just easier. In this egoism shares much with relativism. Many student relativists either feel unqualified or are simply afraid to judge other people. They realize their own lack of life experience and fear looking stupid or intolerant if they deign themselves worthy of judging others. The work involved in making a rational judgment and defending it is not something they want to undertake. Relativism is a comfortable fall-back position that adds a strong touch of tolerance to the person’s self-image. This is also the case with egoism. Other than the difference between enlightened self-interest and immediate gratification, egoism does not require a student to make judgments about other people being right or wrong. Utilitarianism and deontology require careful analysis of situations and both compel judgments. The insecurity factor plays a big role here for students but so does plain old mental laziness. The egoist for whom everything is relative never has to do much mental exercise. Like relativism, egoism becomes a fall-back position with the added touch in this case of giving the impression of hard-headed realism.

Of course all these reasons suffer from the genetic fallacy as far as the theory itself goes. The fact that holding a position can be explained by psychological or historical factors has nothing to do with the validity of the position itself.

However, it is relevant to the validity of the position as well as to pedagogy to explore what "ego" means. Fundamental differences exist between the concept of self in Greek ethics and the concept of self that governs ethical egoism. Many of our students with their post-Cartesian view of the isolated self find egoism compelling yet at the same time they are quite aware of and sympathetic to the concept of the ego developing toward some potential. This realizing of potential is an important part of the college experience. They know that most of their life is something yet to be realized and that developing that potential almost always has to do with some kind of relationship usually in the form of a career, marriage or deep friendship. Such relationships involve commitments to larger goods outside the isolated ego.

A clear example which both challenges the egoistic concept of self and which appeals to the experience of students is Aristotle’s discussion of friendship or, more accurately, the ability to form friendships and be a friend. A student who may have little responsibility elsewhere in life will know what friendship is and virtually all students hope to maintain or have close friends as their lives continue. Among other points, Aristotle claims that having a "complete" friend involves active participation in the person’s life and that the real joy of friendship is in loving a friend, not in being loved. The latter cannot be ignored but the difference between friends for usefulness or pleasure and a true or complete friend is that a complete friend is always available to the other person. Friendship, like the other virtues, commits a person to greater goals than pure self-interest and the result of this self-expansion (or, looked at another way, self-negation) is to realize greater eudaimonia or happiness for both parties.

Traditional egoism has little room for complete friends as Aristotle discusses the concept. For ethical egoism all friends should be in one way or another primarily useful for the self. The idea of negating self-interest for the genuine good of another because the other needs that can only be squeezed into ethical egoism by saying that we should negate self-interest in the present because it will benefit us in the long run. But several problems exist with this claim. First it does not seem to match experience. If I empathize with a close friend and take time to be there with him in his suffering because he needs me there, I am not thinking about my own situation in the future. I am thinking about my friend. This is an argument against psychological egoism but it also makes a point against ethical egoism. Ethical egoism would say I should be thinking more of myself. But why? This raises the second serious problem with the egoist’s claim. Friendship is a classic example of the fact that humans are by nature social beings. Sociality is as much a part of who we are as food, clothing and shelter. The problem with egoism, both psychological and ethical, is that it posits an isolated ego as the given natural starting point of normative action. But Aristotle (as well as modern psychology) recognized that non-egoistic concerns are part of who we are. Caring for friends or children is as much a given as thinking primarily of self, and there is no foundation to claim that we should think primarily of ourselves all the time. Close friendship is an excellent example of recognizing and acting upon the genuine needs of another person.

Egoism also does not talk much about courage for larger causes or about generosity as a virtue. Students understand the courage of a King or Gandhi for causes greater than themselves and, if an instructor contrasts such a character trait with traditional egoism, the effect on students is much stronger in my experience than arguing Kant’s logic with them. Aristotle’s description of generosity also strikes a chord. Generosity is giving the appropriate amount to the right person at the right time in the right way. "Right" and "appropriate" do not mean "best for me." The contrast with egoism is strong because students are well aware, even with their limited life experience, that improper reading of another person’s needs and unreflective action toward another can be highly destructive. Generosity involves time as well as material goods. Many students can easily relate to their own parents who may or may not have given the quality time needed by children or who may have misunderstood or been blind to the students’ experience as teenagers. It strikes students that there is something "good" in itself in recognizing other people’s situations and sharing either time or money in an appropriate way that fits that situation. I have had several students say that, when they are parents, they are going to specifically remember this point about generosity for the good of their children. This has little to do with the ego’s particular desires at any given time. It has to do with the other person’s need. Reflecting on generosity, especially generosity of time, often leads to a recognition of the limitations of egoism.

Another one of Aristotle’s virtues which appeals strongly to students is what is sometimes translated as "truthfulness." This is not honesty in the sense of telling the truth but rather what might be called honest self-presentation. The extremes are boasting on one side and a false sense of humility on the other. What Aristotle is arguing is that happiness cannot be achieved by what we would call today hypocrisy or self-deception because both prevent an accurate reading of one’s own skills and the situations one encounters in life. Boasters, self-deceivers, hypocrites - all twist situations to fit their own perceptions and needs. Students, who are often extremely sensitive to false self-presentation, quickly understand this virtue. Now an ethical egoist might argue that it’s simply intelligent egoism to be truthful in this sense. But Aristotle’s point is that situations require honest self-appraisal and that may call for recognizing that our own needs not come first in many cases. In other words, truthfulness includes within it the imperative to take seriously what others say or need. Honest self-presentation means that in some cases my needs should come first and I should have the most to gain. In other cases the needs of others may come first because they have a greater claim on the situation at hand than I do. This objective appraisal is exactly what the boaster or the person with poor self-esteem cannot do. Egoism as usually defined is actually a program for promoting vice as far as this virtue goes because it is simply false that all ethical situations call for maximizing one’s own benefit. The truthful person, who is able to put his or her ego aside when appropriate, will realize that.

Happiness itself in virtue ethics provides an effective challenge to the supposed end state of egoism. Aristotle emphasizes that eudaimonia is not equivalent to simply obtaining pleasure. It is achieved in the process of living well, with "living well" not meaning many possessions and great wealth but rather fulfilling our potential as a human being. Once again this seems to have an egoistic ring to it but examples given by both Aristotle and modern virtue theorists run counter to that. Someone skilled in carpentry achieves happiness while being the best carpenter possible. This means focussing on the task at hand, i.e., concentrating not on self but on the wood and the project. A skilled teacher achieves happiness by doing it well which means forgetting about one’s own needs and focussing on the class, the material and how to communicate effectively. A psychological egoist might respond that a person does these things to benefit the self but Aristotle would argue that the goal is to build a cabinet or help a class understand a difficult concept. It simply distorts the situation (again) to argue that the real goal is self-aggrandizement. In fact, the more the self enters the picture, the more difficult it becomes to concentrate on the needs of the situation at hand. Ethical egoism is in this sense self-defeating. Insuring that you are going to benefit from a project can lead to lack of concentration on the project itself. Students recognize this difference because they can often contrast a job which they care little about and which they use simply for the money with something they "get into" and enjoy for its own sake. The difference is that, in the latter, they can forget about their egos to appreciate the demands of the task or the beauty of the event in itself. Happiness then is a by-product of a creative merging of the self with the project at hand. The "self" is developed paradoxically not by self-reference but by submitting to the justifiable demands of the other person or the situation. The paradox is resolved if we assume that the self is innately social or connected to the world around it and not an isolated egoistic entity.

Even a virtue like temperance, which seems tailor-made for egoism, has a significantly different look in virtue theory. Students are well aware of the demands of temperance and the virtue provides a useful forum for critiquing modern American society. The classic egoist response to temperance is that it is an excellent guide for intelligent egoism. Enjoy life but not too much and not too little. You will have less negative effects if you experience pleasures intelligently. But the emphasis in virtue ethics is not on avoiding the hangover the next day or avoiding AIDS. The emphasis is on the fact that our bodies have very enjoyable senses yet those same bodies have limits. Recognizing the objectivity of both our bodily condition and the situation at hand will help guide us to a richer, longer-lasting life. The mean in temperance will vary from person to person. The mean for what a professional football player eats will differ from the mean for a 5-year-old child but both can overeat or undereat given their bodily conditions. Temperance is recognizing and acting on those conditions. Students often understand temperance in terms of egoistic effects but Aristotle helps them see that the effects of pleasure are not the only way of judging how to act. Intelligent actions regarding pleasure can equally depend on an accurate reading of who I am and what the situation calls for. I have found this difference especially relevant with students when the pleasure involves another person. Students in sexual relationships understand Aristotle’s point well that an awareness of self and situation, including the other’s needs, is pivotal to appropriate action regarding pleasure. Egoism is much less help here.

Given the theoretical foundation outlined above, what classroom techniques are useful in presenting virtue ethics as a counter to egoism? I have alluded briefly to a few pedagogical points and will expand on more below but I want to reiterate first the significance for lecture and discussion of Aristotle’s analysis of friendship, especially the distinction between friends for utility, friends for pleasure, and complete friends. Of special note is Aristotle’s point that a complete friend is another "you" and that total openness is part of complete friendship. Combined with relevant readings from the Nicomachean Ethics, this lecture topic has consistently been one that my students talk about the entire semester as well as after the semester is over. The concept is profoundly relevant to them and is perhaps the strongest single counterpoint to egoism in the lives of most of our students.

As noted above, Aristotle’s virtue of "truthfulness" or honest self-presentation is another virtue that resonates strongly with most college-age students. One of the most effective techniques I have found for fleshing out this virtue is to get the class involved in discussing self-deception or lack of honest self-presentation to oneself. Self-deception was not analyzed by Aristotle but is much discussed today in philosophy. Mike Martin’s book, Self-Deception and Morality, is an excellent overview of this relevant topic to students. The issue of self-deception raises the egoism-virtue issue to the fore because self-deception is commonly perceived as a block to personal growth and what constitutes the "self" is a natural part of this discussion. Students usually understand self-deception as a vice (about a drinking habit, for example) and it is impossible to talk about it being a vice without recognizing that the realistic demands of other people or events in the world must be acknowledged as important. Since self-deception can last a life-time in some cases, it is also a useful example of Aristotle’s point about habits being the foundation of virtue and vice. Martin categorizes self-deception in several ways and some of those ways make self-deception an apparent necessary good at times. These conflicting views make for a strong lecture issue and an effective discussion topic. Though the book itself is a bit difficult for new students in philosophy, the topic is a useful resource for talking about self and virtue.

MacIntyre’s well-known distinction between internal and external goods also relates well to the experience of students and makes for an effective lecture topic. His point is that virtues are those traits that allow us to experience the internal goods of practices. Without getting into an extended discussion of MacIntyre at this point, suffice it to say that students who work, for example, are well aware of the distinction between doing something only for external rewards compared with working to achieve the internal rewards of a practice. Virtues like honesty and self-discipline are essential to achieving most internal goods (e.g., a project completed and well done) while a strong focus on an external good (like a paycheck) can result, at least in the short run, in trying to obtain that good by any means available including dishonesty and laziness. Examples help a great deal in clarifying this distinction. One of the best applied readings on this point is Shantung Compound by Langdon Gilkey. It is the true story of Gilkey’s experience in a Japanese internment camp during World War II and it documents the struggle of about 2000 people from a huge variety of backgrounds trying to make a life together from scratch. Basically, the Japanese supplied enough raw materials and a small, crowded, but livable area and said, "Make a life." Gilkey records the struggle of people in the compound between self-centeredness and virtue and he comments several times on the effect of virtue on the quality of life, the "internal goods" of the practices there. Shantung Compound contains numerous examples of how external goods can corrupt human practices and how virtues like hard work and courage relate to a deeper sense of personal satisfaction as well as, at times, survival itself. Students may never experience what the Shantung internees did but vices like greed, laziness and injustice are just as relevant in their own jobs and relationships. Students who say "I’m just in this for myself because that’s the way the world is" may be surprised from this book about how the "world" functions.

One of the strongest contemporary arguments for the concept of self in virtue ethics comes not from philosophy but from developmental psychology. And one of the very best resources is William Damon’s The Moral Child. This is a powerful lecture-reading combination because Damon does not speculate about human nature; he documents it with a storehouse of careful studies. The book is especially important for those students who have or will have children. Damon notes that study after study indicates the importance of the pre-moral emotions in very young children, including primitive senses of empathy and justice. These then develop with proper guidance into (ala Aristotle) habits of character. Not only is the purely egoistic self a philosophical fiction; it is an empirical fiction. Development of virtuous habits has a positive effect both on society as a whole and on the long-term happiness of individuals. For children basic habits like justice form around simple experiences like whose turn it is to use the swing set. This work in developmental psychology also relates well to feminist analyses of the "ethics of care" and of the importance of empathy for a well-rounded person. The entire area is a devastating critique of the egoistic assumption of the isolated ego as the focal point and goal of ethical action. A student can still argue against Damon and other developmental psychologists that a person should be as self-centered as possible but that becomes an increasingly irrational argument when studies are presented of child-raising and the effect on quality of life as an adult.

A final pedagogical issue I want to address is the importance of group discussion for getting students to recognize non-egoistic perspectives. Many effective discussion techniques are possible. I use a set of discussion questions of which students must select one ahead of time and write a brief discussion paper outside of class prior to the discussion itself. These papers then become the focus of the discussion on the particular questions. I have found the writing to be an important factor in the quality of the discussions. Regardless of the method used, the value of the discussions for most college-age students relative to virtue ethics is the give-and-take from people of quite different backgrounds. For example, it is difficult to defend egoism when a single mother sitting next to you has to worry about raising a child to be a productive, happy human being. Some serious discussions of "happiness" arise from such background differences. Likewise, the meaning of a virtue like courage is substantially enhanced when students hear another student talking about Alcoholics Anonymous or when an older student talks about the risk of giving up a high-paying job to go to college in order to become a more creative person. Discussions force the egoism-virtue distinction to the forefront. The limited experience of most students is broadened and the reasons for egoism mentioned at the beginning of this paper become less compelling. Input from other students about different virtues, happiness, akrasia (weakness of will), phronesis (practical wisdom), the golden mean, self-deception and many other areas serves as a critique to the egoistic pressure of our society and expands the understanding of what "responsibility" means to college-age students. Discussions also make it significantly harder to take egoism as the "easy way out." I highly recommend carefully guided discussions to bring out the issues discussed in this paper.

Overall, virtue ethics can have a maturing effect on students who are used to judging situations by egoistic results. Phronesis, or practical wisdom in Aristotle, can be viewed as a blueprint for maturity. Unlike the goal in egoism, a self which is always in relationship in one way or another will have as a major task deciphering how to act appropriately in different situations. This is what virtues are useful for - helping the self in its multiple relations maximize the human good. While virtues promote happiness for the self, since that "self" is not an isolated entity, eudaimonia naturally has a radiating effect or social quality to it. All relevant parties benefit from friendship, generosity or truthfulness. As Aristotle might say, just people do just actions and just people make a just society. The idea that the goal of happiness in virtue ethics is simply a form of egoism involves a category mistake about what the "self" is. In our post-Cartesian world we have a hard time getting over that confusion. Understanding the self-in-connection and exposing students to the character of different people is in practice the most effective way to provide an alternative to egoism in the classroom.