Selfishness in Ethics

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Relativism vs. Objectivism
Egoism vs. Altruism
Deontological vs. Consequentialist Theories

Philosophical discussions of Ethics usually end up addressing one or more of the “disagreements” listed above. It is possible to reconcile these opposed positions if we bring into the discussion an assumption that human beings have a fundamental and intrinsic need for Approval (the approval of others). It changes everything. With such a need it becomes clear that egoism no longer conflicts with altruism, that deontological theories must yield to consequentialist explanations, and that relativism no longer makes any sense. All of this is possible because our fundamental need for approval finally explains why human beings are ever inspired to act in ways that we normally describe as “unselfish.”

Why do human beings do nice things for others? Why do they make sacrifices for others? Let’s say you see someone suffering. Maybe you can “feel his pain.” Maybe you can even imagine the relief the person would feel if you were to help him. Why would you be inspired to help that person obtain relief? How could it possibly give satisfaction to you? Why would you enjoy seeing that person become happy? You say it makes you “feel good?” Why would something that happened to someone else make you feel good? The answer is that, if it were not for our fundamental need for the approval of others, it would never have occurred to any of us to do anything that might benefit another human being. Seeing another human being’s smiles of approval and gratitude would have no more impact on us than noticing that yet another leaf had fallen from a tree. We would be utterly indifferent.

When we see that others approve of us, it satisfies a “mental” need that can also be accurately described as an emotional need. This need for approval is certainly unique when compared to our purely biological needs. It is apparently an “open-ended” need since there is no point of homeostasis at which the need is finally satisfied. We can enjoy approval from every imaginable source all day and still be hurt by disapproval at the end of the day. More approval received always continues to “feel good.” It is a need that has positive and negative aspects, which distinguishes it from many of our purely biological needs. It’s not just a lack of approval that causes emotional pain, even though that eventuality is certainly painful in its own right (loneliness). Expressed disapproval seems to dramatically “aggravate” the need, sometimes inflicting acute emotional pain (embarrassment, ridicule, rejection). But it’s not just a need to avoid disapproval. Expressed approval feels so good, we are always eager for more. It is because we have this need for approval that we are “selfishly” motivated to be kind to others.

The moral value that deontological philosophers like Kant have always assigned to unselfishness is based on the intuitive recognition that we all seem to benefit when we all act to help each other (otherwise, why would it be “good?”). But it’s also been intuitively apparent to philosophers that connecting this “ironic truth” to an individually possessed need for approval would confront us with the “curse” of emotional vulnerability (if I have a need for the approval of others, then others have the power to hurt me with ease). My claim is that [b]this fear[/b] is the reason why deontologists have always sought to purge moral motivation of any self-serving intentions. They were afraid to admit that they have a very sensitive need for the approval of others so they simply declared unselfish behavior to be “good” without actually saying that we need it in order to be happy. Kant’s theoretical treatise leaves us implicitly inferring our own benefit from such behavior; my analysis points out that “unselfish” behavior benefits us [selfishly] in a cause and effect manner. Kant was able to ignore the important role in ethics that our need for Approval plays by simply portraying duty-fulfillment as an irreducible end-in-itself. In fact, duty-fulfillment is really only a means-to-an-end, the ultimate end being the emotional need-satisfaction that is generated by approval received from others).

We are so accustomed to viewing selfishness as “bad” we are somewhat uncomfortable with the realization that we are doing ourselves a favor when we seek to satisfy the needs of others. Indeed, recognizing our fundamental need for approval makes it clear to us that the only way for us to maximize our own personal happiness is to seek always to satisfy the needs of others. If we all want to obtain an optimal satisfaction of our emotional needs, we must all constantly seek to become sources of need-satisfaction (especially emotional need-satisfaction) to each other by trying to earn each other’s gratitude (approval). Gee, wouldn’t that create the ideal loving world we have always desired? But then, such a world would have to be considered a moral abomination because of our selfish motivation, wouldn’t it?

The deontological assault on selfish motivation has been responsible for an incredible amount of unnecessary mental anguish. Individuals have been encouraged to behave “unselfishly” but have been given no personal reason to do so (motivation) other than because such behavior is considered praiseworthy (approval). But then they are told that if they are motivated by their desire for praise, their actions must be morally condemned because their motives deserve only contempt. This creates an internal conflict that confounds ordinary logic. With these definitions the only way one can hope to become ideally worthy of praise is to become truly indifferent to praise. The skewed logic of the deontological moral perspective forces pious individuals into a perpetual state of self-loathing. This is because they intuitively recognize their desire for praise while at the same time realizing that their enjoyment of praise is the one thing that must—by definition—deprive them of the praise they desire. So they end up hating their desire for praise in the hope that they’ll become more deserving of it.

People have been encouraged to castigate others for a selfish motivational nature that neither can be nor should be overcome by exertions of will. In truth, people should never be criticized for their selfishness but only for being “stupid-selfish” instead of “smart-selfish.” If you are smart-selfish, you will always act to become a source of need-satisfaction to others in order to earn their gratitude. And you will understand that simply expressing gratitude for the kindnesses visited upon you by others satisfies their need for approval, which makes you a valued source of need-satisfaction in their eyes, which in turn earns you the approval you desire. If you’re smart-selfish, you’ll understand that expressing approval is one of the best ways to earn approval. If you are stupid-selfish, you will be oblivious to the importance of your emotional needs and will not have any good reason to not take advantage of others. If you pretend that your fundamental need for approval does not exist, it discourages you from being kind to others because it ultimately reveals that you have a “weakness” that others could possibly take advantage of. It’s interesting how displaying one’s humility becomes yet another performance that serves to hide one’s vulnerability by convincing others that a need for approval does not exist.

With recognition of this fundamental need for approval, it can be seen that there are positive, reward-oriented reasons for “being good”. The oppressive weight of moral “obligation” is not necessary. Fear of punishment is not the only reason why a person should want to be Good. We will all benefit greatly if we come to realize that it is not necessary for us to be miserable in order to be good. One of the important results of recognizing our fundamental need for approval is discovering not only that we can be both happy and good; we cannot possibly be happy without being good. The day we are finally able to free ourselves from the psycho-pathological grip of ironic moral reasoning, we will be able to begin discovering just how joyful life can be.

Gabriel
wearesaved.org

2

I think I agree, to some extent. However, what is the distinction between being selfishly good, being altruistic, and being self righteous?

What do you say to someone who perceives reality different than you? Perhaps a selfishly good act to them is a selfishly bad act towards you?

Is this not a form of the “silver rule” (do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you)? Where is the proactivity of good if you should only do good that benefits you?

Is selflessness really selfish?

I dunno, nothing seems “solved” by your post, but it is an interesting take. It’s very similar to what Ayn Rand is saying, although not quite as extreme.

3

Do you wish to be praised, have the approval of others, or to do good?

As for me, I don’t give a damn for the praise and blame of the mob: one man will approve, another disapprove… and if I listen I will be up one minute and down the next and my condition ever and always in the hands of others.

Now there’s one thing I do have power over and that’s my own moral purpose thank you. I’m certainly not going to subjugate that most important faculty to the selfish whim of others!

4

You’ve raised some good questions, Rafajafar…

My ethical theory has an element of psychological egoism in that it insists that people always act selfishly even when they might otherwise appear to be acting selflessly because of our need for approval. This need for Approval may play an extremely important [and unrecognized] role in Moral Motivation, but it does not define for us what is moral. After all, expressed approval can be used to encourage both moral and immoral behavior. I define moral behavior as behavior that all members of a community are expected to carry out in order that all might benefit. Immoral behavior is behavior that all members of a community are expected to eschew in order that all might benefit.

So what kinds of actions are moral? My definition: an action is moral if it would produce favorable consequences (need-satisfaction) for everyone, if everyone were to act in the same way. (Note how this differs from Ethical Egoism) This is similar to Kant’s formulation: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant’s wording avoids the suggestion that one might want to act morally in order to experience a personal benefit. My formulation emphasizes that consequences are the ultimate determinant of what is right/wrong. Can you see how these definitions establish morality as objective rather than subjective? Actions that would benefit everyone if everyone were to do the same are the only kind of actions that can possibly enjoy universal approval. If one group (or person) would benefit from an action at the expense of another group, then the action is not moral and it will not enjoy universal approval.

I’m not sure that a distinction can be properly made between “altruism” and what I describe as “smart-selfishness.” Isn’t the latter just the former properly understood?

Self-righteousness is a form of “stupid-selfishness.” Those who behave self-righteously typically have a habit of expressing disdain for those who can be identified as possessing flaws unworthy of approval. People pursue this “strategy” because it enables them to indirectly praise themselves in a way that is not always obvious. Attention is focused on the flaws of some “violator”, but the implicit message to others is “I do not have these flaws and so therefore I am deserving of approval.” It is ultimately a distraction strategy that seeks to minimize the amount of expressed disapproval received by focusing attention on others. It is immoral behavior because everyone would not benefit if everyone were to act in the same way. We would all end up expressing disapproval of each other all of the time because we want to minimize the amount of disapproval we experience. It’s stupid.

A bully is an example of a person who believes (at least intuitively) that it is “good” for him to threaten and intimidate everyone he meets in order that he might feel more secure from the emotional attacks of others. If he can get others to fear him, they might be less inclined to express any sort of disapproval, which would hurt his feelings. Bullying is not objectively good behavior in a moral sense because we would not all benefit if we all were to constantly bully each other. If the bully believes that his behavior is “good” in a moral sense, then he is mistaken. At best, his behavior could only be described as “good-for-him”, but even that is not true in practice (consider the long-run).

When we encounter people whose behavior is a threat to us—because of their misinterpretations of what kinds of behavior are “good” for them to practice—we have the collective ability to insist that they change their behavior. If they misbehave in a way that threatens us because they don’t understand what they are doing then it would be in our collective interest to enlighten them. That’s what morality is. It is a collective focus on the kinds of behavior that would either threaten us all or would benefit us all if we were all to act the same way. Individual behavior that has no impact on others is not a matter of concern. The only time we develop a sense of “moral consciousness” is when we recognize that a certain kind of behavior would affect us all in a good or bad way if we were to all embrace the same “values.” Personal decisions to behave “morally” are therefore self-interest decisions that take into consideration the fact that the behavior of others can have a big impact on our own personal happiness.

Could you elaborate?

That’s all for now…

Gabriel
wearesav.org

5

Hey Gaby,

You say,

“When we encounter people whose behavior is a threat to us—because of their misinterpretations of what kinds of behavior are “good” for them to practice—we have the collective ability to insist that they change their behavior. If they misbehave in a way that threatens us because they don’t understand what they are doing then it would be in our collective interest to enlighten them. That’s what morality is. It is a collective focus on the kinds of behavior that would either threaten us all or would benefit us all if we were all to act the same way. Individual behavior that has no impact on others is not a matter of concern. The only time we develop a sense of “moral consciousness” is when we recognize that a certain kind of behavior would affect us all in a good or bad way if we were to all embrace the same “values.” Personal decisions to behave “morally” are therefore self-interest decisions that take into consideration the fact that the behavior of others can have a big impact on our own personal happiness.” (My Bold Typefaces)

Surely, this paragraph has little to do with morals and a great deal to do with sociology, politics and law!

Let us stop dictating to others how they should behave, (usually in accordance with our own mistaken opinions,) and try and be more liberal and accepting of the given situation as it exists.

Morality has nothing whatsoever to do with collectives, that is the common mistake of all moralising and moralisers. Morals concerns me, and me alone. The collective is none of my business. I should mind my own business, know myself, improve myself, and learn how to be tolerant and patient and understanding with others. Morals is about individuals as individuals not as collectives of individuals.

Selfishness in ethics only occurs where individuals attempt to impose their particular ethical beliefs on society-at-large or the world or any part thereof.

6

Hi GabrielS.A.V.E.D.,

It also seems to me you have made the age old mistake of defining selfishness as any act which gives some form of self-gratification. It is not, selfishness is acting in a way which is for the benefit of oneself to the detriment of others.

There are some who have argued that Mother Thresea is as selfish as a bank robber, she only acted in that way for self-gratification, hence selfish reasons. This is just a misunderstanding of the word selfish, nothing more. Hence you can’t be smart-selfish without the motivation for your action being ultimately selfish.

There is a distinction between a man who helps because he wants to and one who helps because he wants to impress. The essential difference is that if there were no-one around to see, the latter wouldn’t help, hence he is acting to the detriment of others as he is putting out a false image, which tricks others into believing he is a good person. This is the only way you could differ “smart-selfishness” from “stupid-selfishness”.

In the end, if you start weighing up whether or not to help, you are selfish, it is just a question of what degree.

7

Good posts all. I think i agree with most of what GabrielS.A.V.E.D. has said, although i would have couched it in a language different than that of ‘approval of others’. I agree that deontology must yield to consequentialism, for instance.

(italics mine and added for emphasis)
Great post. It is a joy to have you on the forum. Amazingly some of these same themes have preoccupied me too at times. Especially that of egoism vs. altruism and to a lesser extent, that of deontology vs. consequentialism. Although approval may be one possible motivation, i remain unconvinced that it ‘finally explains’ our unselfish inspirations. As a consequentialist, i can readily envision situations wherein i could directly benefit the majority or all of the people affected by my actions while receiving the approval of noone.

I agree. I score high on empathy on psychological tests myself. I just don’t think that this fully explains altruism. There is actually a small benefit to be had in being nice to others. Viewed from this perspective, altruism is a subtler form of egoism, keeping in mind that this subtle form is but a small part of altruism. Altruism may well find it’s nascent form in the approval of others, but it hardly stops there. There remain hard loving austere natures which take great pains from others while performing noble deeds. I submit here, as examples, only that of Jesus, and certain artists.

I don’t think you can consider this need for approval as, “…certainly unique when compared to our purely biological needs.” A conscious creature must consider it’s life worth living to sustain it. The approval of others is just one input that allows that assessment to be made. I remain open on this however, and would welcome a detailed rebuttal. It is definitely an open ended need as you say, however.

Your first sentence echoes what i have said here previously about altruism being a subtle form of egoism. Your point about emotional vulnerability, however, seems like a narrow conclusion drawn from your unnecessary reliance on the approval of others as a motivating factor for altruism. I might also point out that deontology and altruism are distinct. There are consequentialist altruists. I look forward to your reply.

8

phrygianslave said:

Sociology, politics, and law are all discussions that have everything to do with morality. One cannot talk about one without talking about the others.

Is this a suggestion that all laws should be abandoned (“committed to the flames”)? Do not all laws seek to “dictate” to others how they should behave?

It’s interesting that you don’t perceive yourself to be a member of a collective. Other people have an interest in how you behave or misbehave, not at all times, but only with respect to certain kinds of behavior.

I understand your concerns about collectives. But you need to understand that there is nothing wrong with the concept of people acting collectively to insist that everyone behave in ways that everyone agrees would be beneficial to all involved. What makes collective action right or wrong is whether or not the collective law is logical and morally justifiable. After all, it is possible for some sub-groups to act collectively to impose laws on others that benefit one group at the expense of another. Such collective action is bad (fundamentally immoral) since all those who are expected to embrace the law do not all benefit if everyone were to follow the law. The proscriptions we have against killing, physical violence, theft, extortion, etc. are all examples of collective action that is moral for this basic reason. It’s not collective action, per se, that is bad; it’s collective action that ends up harming the collective’s long-run interests or that ends up benefiting one group at the expense of another that is bad. Moral collectivism is good; immoral collectivism is bad. (Has Ayn Rand stirred in her grave yet?)

Gabriel
wearesaved.org

9

Hi Matt:

The concept of selfishness I was using was derived from Kant’s effort to purge moral motivation of any hint of “selfishness.” I have no problem accepting a definition of selfishness like the one you provide. My points would simply be stated a bit differently.

Even when one has no good reason to expect that any expression of gratitude will be forthcoming, people are still inspired to earn approval (by being helpful/generous) because they have developed a moral identity that has become very important to them (for many, it becomes a life goal). Those who practice anonymous philanthropy do not have to experience the gratitude of their beneficiaries directly to know (be confident) that gratitude will be felt by a recipient of some kindness. It is enough for them to know that the beneficiary could not help but feel grateful to “somebody” and that they were the ones who were responsible for the relief/gratitude felt. Their goal is then to become worthy of the approval/gratitude of others.

Does this mean that we can remove the need for approval from the motivational equation? No. The goal of becoming merely worthy of approval would have no value to us if the approval of others did not have value to us. We are able to “feel good about ourselves” because we know that we have acted in a way that would earn us the approval of others if those others were aware of our actions. Being able to simply anticipate “possible need-satisfaction” may not give us the same intensity of emotional pleasure that actually-experiencing-gratitude provides (Jimmy Stewart at the end of It’s a Wonderful Life), but it is still a level of need-satisfaction that many people have found so appealing, they are willing to make tremendous sacrifices in order to experience it (e.g., soldiers going into battle). The self-sacrificing behavior is still a means-to-an-ultimate-end that depends on the remembered pleasure of “other approval” for its appeal.

That’s all I have time for now…

Gabriel
wearesaved.org

10

Gaby,

I would simply quote the great Russian novelist and moral philosopher, Leo Tolstoy: “Everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”

Until we have learned how best each one of us is to deal with himself and make himself a good and excellent person, (and that is a life-long process, nay, battle, i.e., to master the brute within,) it is fruitless to make laws for others to obey.

And I would say that the lucky few who do ever reach the condition of good and excellent men (or women) then have in their possession so much patience and understanding and magnanimity and virtue that it no longer matters to them that their fellows may want to murder and rape one another and break every moral ‘law’ in the book for they will be filled with so much compassion and love for their poverty-stricken brothers and sisters that morality will appear irrelevant.

Perhaps, anyway, the only acceptable laws, i.e., ones which the great majority might feel comfortable in subscribing to, can be those that come from some external objective absolute authority that is regarded by the concensus of collective and representative opinion as infallible. Thus, ‘god.’

Finally, do you think it possible that ‘nature’ that other great god, might have created the mind of man also to evolve and develop along evolutionary lines akin to those popularly understood in Darwinian theory? I mean to say, might there be circumstances when the cannibal or the rapist will be important to keep the human species itself in existence? And that therefore, these great forces we try to make sense of and adjust to our own anthropocentrisms are perhaps best left in the hands of this unknowable, ineffable, (whatever,) One?

11

Relativism and Altruism are pure unadulterated evil.

12

hmmm…Moderate Centrist, the name Warrior Monk wouldn’t hold any meaning for you would it?

I smell a rat.

13

Monk you sneaky bastard! I just realized that they banned you on Jan. 30. You could’ve been a little more discreet and at least waited a few days before rejoining.

14

OMFG! It is Warrior Monk.
Look, do a Google Search

15

Ego is a byproduct of evolution, ego is only way to observe reality from our own perspective.

We all are products of genetic and memetic evolution. And evolution is bound to the altruism, and altruism has more benefits than selfish “egoist” behaviour.

Egoism is only modern ideology to give stupid people an excuse for being selfish and destroy our planet sametime(Bush, blair, capitalism, consumerism) in the name of development.

And can you say that devolopment is something like this “you buy a product which dosent last very long, and then you have buy another one because old one is broke”. For example cellular phones, Nokia Chief Director Jorma Ollila said that “we want make phones, so that our customers always buy a new model”.

I mean whatta fuck!!. Do we need every year new phone only because phones are not make to last very long. I mean should Nokia for example start to produce solar panels after making the phones. I dont need any crabby imagemessages or anyother shit like that. I need a phone only to communicate.

This is selfish behaviour, buy a new phone every year. Really stupid I think. Consumerism=destruction, stupidity.

Ideologies are bound to selfish needs of one certain cultural/memetic group, for example…

Capitalists say that winner takes all from Darwinian aspect.
Which is false.

Because in nature even the beasts are slain by the diseases or by starving to death. And when the beast dies it feeds maggots etc.

Evertyhing works in basis on recycling.

Only a man is stupid enough to explain that there is no altruism.

16

let us kill the fatted calf…

                                                  ...the prodigal hath returned
17

Yo Marshall… :wink:

Parents usually feel something other than pleasure when they make endless sacrifices for their young children without any hint of gratitude from them. Why? Part of the reason may be because they believe society expects them to make sacrifices for their children and that society would disapprove if the sacrifices were not made. But another reason why parents make such sacrifices is because they hope their children will eventually feel gratitude for the sacrifices that were made.

But even when there is no good reason to expect that an expression of gratitude will be forthcoming, many people still feel inspired to be helpful or generous because they have developed a moral identity that has become very important to them (for many, it becomes a life goal). Those who practice anonymous philanthropy do not have to experience the gratitude of their beneficiaries directly to know (be confident) that gratitude will be felt. It is enough for them to know that someone felt grateful to somebody and that they were the ones who were responsible for the relief/gratitude that was felt. Their goal is then to become worthy of the approval/gratitude of others. Does this mean that we can remove the need for approval from the motivational equation? No. The goal of becoming merely worthy of approval would have no value to us if approval, itself, did not have value.

We can “feel good about ourselves” when we carry out unrecognized acts of kindness because we know that our actions would earn us the approval of others if those others were aware of our actions. Becoming deserving of approval may not provide the same intensity of emotional pleasure that actually experiencing gratitude provides (imagine Jimmy Stewart at the end of It’s a Wonderful Life), but it is still a level of need-satisfaction that many people have found so appealing, they are willing to make tremendous sacrifices in order to experience it (e.g., soldiers going into battle). Being deserving of approval provides satisfaction because we have an even more fundamental need to “perceive future need-satisfaction as likely.” When this forward-looking need is satisfied, we feel the pleasure of security or reassurance or hope. When that need is not satisfied, we experience the “pain” of Fear. The “pain of fear” may not be quite as acute as “actually experienced pain”, but it is still so very unpleasant that we have come to describe it as depression).

Why is it that some people are able to resist the temptation to lie or cheat or steal even when they know they can get away with it? It is because they perceive their moral identities to be so valuable (as a source of potential other-approval), they cannot stand the thought of losing it. What they fear is losing a very important source of actual and potential emotional need-satisfaction. Without a strong enough moral identity, it becomes difficult—if not impossible—to resist temptation.

I wonder if you could give me a little more to go on here, Marshall. I’m not exactly sure what it is that I would be rebutting. I could speculate, but that might be an unnecessary waste of time…

I’d like to answer this the next time I have a chance. Unfortunately, I’ve just run out of time… :confused:

Gabriel
wearesaved.org

18

I appreciate your detailed lengthy reply. The first part of your post seems to give some of the due to egoism.
You say for instance:

To me, the ‘potential other-approval’ of others is useless unless one first approves of oneself. Presumably, even the approval of others is sought because one first values oneself. Because their approval is a source of satisfaction to oneself.

Indeed a lot of contemporary morality is at the superficial level of soliciting the approval of others.

Hypothetical scenario:

You have just found out that a man has planned to kill 40 people at a party 30 minutes from now. There is not enough time to call the police and all of the guests will be arriving with the killer in a bus. There is no way to prove that he will kill the people, before or after the fact. You can secretly kill the killer with the press of a button on a device hidden in your pocket. But the killer is an important man, if you tell anyone at anytime, you and your family of 5 will die.

How does the approval of others play into this scenario? Do you say that if people could know of this they would approve (potential approval as you call it)? A consequentialist would press the button and remain silent, a strict deontologist would not press the button.

Social mores and the approval of others probably have to do as a start for the very young. In addition social mores play a strong role in how we conduct ourselves around others, despite all this, I still think that a strong moral identity is possible from a mainly egoistic position.

After re-reading the original quote within it’s much larger context, i have come to the conclusion that you were saying that the need for approval is unique from biological needs in that it is open-ended or insatiable. I agree with this. I originally misunderstood you. Think you for allowing me time to understand this.

You also stated somewhere here:

Can i say more? Kudos! A good analysis of selfrighteousness! I have nothing but haughty disdain for all of those self righteous people! :unamused: :laughing: :sunglasses:

19

very true.

20

Earlier, Marshall, you pointed out that:

I would be interested in any examples you might be able to provide of this…

Why? Assuming that I do not approve of myself, why would it then be useless to me if I then received the approval of others? Why do you consider self-approval to be a pre-condition that must be met before one can look for (desire, enjoy) the approval of others?

This pretty much goes to the heart of what I’m challenging. The idea that human beings need something called “self-esteem” (self-approval) is very popular today. I claim that the only reason why that bizarre theory has been embraced is because it offers individuals a hope that they might be able to get their need for approval satisfied without having to depend on others for its satisfaction. Self-approval would seem to be the ideal answer for the individual who is not getting all the approval she might desire. The implicit hope that everyone clings to: it doesn’t matter if others disapprove of you; you can always give yourself all the approval that you really need! If you haven’t received much approval from others lately, just give yourself some. It is implicitly assumed that self-given approval is just as “need-satisfying” as the approval we get from others, that it can compensate for or displace the emotional pain we feel when others have indicated their disapproval of us.

Ultimately, however, it just doesn’t make any sense. If self-approval had the same capacity to satisfy our need for “approval” that other-approval has, then why would we ever even notice the disapproval of others? Why wouldn’t we just go around praising ourselves all of the time in a compulsive manner? At any hint of disapproval from others, we would automatically and quickly turn to the comforting pleasure of self-approval. If praising ourselves felt just as good as the praise that comes from others, I can’t imagine that we would concern ourselves with the approval of others, ever. Self-approval would be easy. Why would we ever care that others do not approve? We wouldn’t. It would be like having a morphine pump right at our fingertips. We would be filled with contentment all of the time because we’d just give ourselves some approval whenever we felt any kind of desire for it at all. That’s the Self-Esteem Dream. The only problem is that it doesn’t work. People who suffer from implicit disapproval in their social environments are encouraged to “not worry about what others think” and to focus on those qualities they possess that should be praised. Upon returning to the unpleasant social environment, fortified by generous doses of self-approval, they find that all of their self-approval evaporates as soon as other-disapproval is heard. Why would this ever happen if self-approval works?

I offer a different explanation. I allow that Self-Esteem does have some value as a means-to-an-end (the end being other-approval), but insist that it cannot satisfy any need directly. People are not able to insulate themselves with self-approval from the pain of other-disapproval because the self-approval doesn’t actually do anything for us. The only reason why we perceive self-approval to have any value at all is because we hope that it will lead to other-approval. Sometimes it can do just that. Self-approval is able to elicit the approval of others sometimes because most people depend on us to tell them how they ought to regard us. If we appear as though we expect others to approve of us (apparently because we have experienced it previously), then many of those whom we meet will assume that we are deserving of it. Why else would we be expecting it? So yes, self-esteem can be valuable as a means-to-an-end but that value is only derivative, dependent ultimately on the approval of others.

We often hear people say, “If you want others to love you, you first have to love yourself.” There is no doubt that people will be inclined to perceive you as approvable if you appear to believe that you are deserving of their approval. But that means that what you really want/need is their approval, not yours. Generally speaking, Self-Esteem enthusiasts have everything backwards. The amount of Self-Esteem one has or doesn’t have is determined by the amount of other-esteem that one experiences. The logical way to improve your self-esteem is to earn the esteem of others through your giving actions. The Self-Esteem Dream proposes magical solutions to the problem of emotional pain (“Make yourself happy!”). I think it’s time for us to start facing reality…

Introducing this fundamental need for the approval of others into the discussion of ethics does not lead us directly to the conclusion that The Good is simply that which earns the approval of others. It only means, first of all, that actions are not rendered immoral simply because the motives of the actor are selfish. (This is not the same thing as saying that all selfishly motivated actions are moral.) Why does it insist that many actions motivated by the selfish desire for approval (e.g., being helpful) are not immoral, but are actually moral instead? It is because those actions elicit approval because of their moral quality (i.e., because of their consequences). If certain kinds of actions are both praised and moral, then we should be legitimately praised for carrying them out even if our sole motivation for doing so is to earn approval from others. In other words: given that some approval-earning actions are moral and some are not, we should be praised for seeking approval in those ways that are moral. With this understanding, I think it is fair for us to embrace the generalization that it is moral for us to seek approval when the approval that is sought is for actions that seek to satisfy the needs of others.

The answer to the second question is yes. We are generally inspired to act to become worthy of approval in order to eventually experience it. It is a means-to-an-end. But even when it appears unlikely that we will be able to experience any recognition for our good deeds, we may still “do the right thing” because we “can only hope” that it will eventually be recognized and appreciated (by God?). But let’s assume that we can know with absolute certainty that our kindnesses will never be recognized or appreciated by anyone. People will still carry out such acts simply because it “feels good” to them to know that others would approve if they knew. But the only reason it “feels good” is because the approval of others feels good. We are therefore still motivated to act by our need for approval, even though the approval may only exists as a “potentiality.”

That’s all I have time for now…

Gabriel
wearesaved.org