The Egoist View

Introduction

In a 2003 New York Times article, Karin Strickland, a woman with the audacity to drive a large Hummer

H2, defended herself in the following ways. Karin had no doubts about her decision. However, such an

attitude raises ethical concerns about the self-interested approach to the common good. Ethical egoism

and utilitarianism are the two moral theories that can be applied in assessing Karin's reasoning. Ethical

egoism posits that moral agents should place the interests of the self above those of others; thus, Karin

may not think she deserves any criticism for her resource consumption. On the other hand,

utilitarianism upholds the principles of overall pleasure and satisfaction as the highest moral values,

which can easily label Karin's decision as inflicting unnecessary suffering on others and detriment to the

should act only in their self-interest and do not have any obligations towards other people. From this

perspective, it is apparent that Karin was trying to do exactly that, which is the statute of the egoist – to

act according to what is in the best interest of the self.

From the egoist view, one could make several arguments supporting Karin’s position in the article. One

such rationale, which may be derived from the excerpts from the course, is that people are

fundamentally self-interested creatures who are most capable of knowing and fulfilling their wants and

needs. Karin seems to derive great satisfaction from the size, performance, and, most especially, the

liberty that comes with ownership of the Hummer. An egoist would contend that in choosing the above

personal satisfaction over and above the altruistic issues, then Karin is right, given that she is just

focusing on her subjective utility.

From here it is possible to go on to the egoist view of the altruism outlined by Ayn Rand as being

axiomatic that altruism itself is deadly to human life and value. Pure selflessness or altruism requires

that one gives up their resources and efforts for the benefit of others. However, the egoist sees this as

fundamentally flawed – one’s primary ethical duty is to pursue values, ambitions, and enjoyment for

oneself selfishly. Thus, framing the issue this way, Karin’s decision to assert her right to an enjoyable life

is a moral value, and the hummer-shaming side is an anti-life approach.

However, there are certain problems with the egoist perspective and its justification of Karin’s position.

While maximizing egoistic self-assertion, it is more or less unresponsive to Karin’s behavior harming

others, such as causing more harm to the physical environment and depleting resources. If everyone

were to adopt ethical egoism, then the ethics of this self-interest could permit many more unethical or

damaging actions in society, provided that they benefited the agent. The egoist view appears to offer

Lastly, in portraying egoist arguments in favor of Karin’s rationality, there is a vivid and profound

glorification of individual preferences in opposition to utilitarian imperatives over wide ethical concern;

however, such a viewpoint is debatable and problematic. Its sheer essence of self-interest may be far

too uncompromising a moral stance for society to embrace, even though it offers some rationale for

Karin’s unabashed love for Hummers.

From the utilitarian ethical point of view, the fact that Karin uses her car, which emits less fuel, means

she is unethical as she made a self-serving decision that has a negative impact on society. Her Hummer

gets approximately 13 mpg, producing higher greenhouse emissions and consuming more natural

resources than efficient vehicles. This exacerbates climate change, air pollution, and energy insecurity

problems, diminishing social utility and global human wellbeing. The utilitarian could rightly point out

that Karin, owing such an excess of personal luxury in disregard for these externalized costs, ethically

fails to consider the utility and wellbeing of others as much as she considers her own.

In addition, the utilitarian may point to Karin’s callousness and seeming ignorance of how individual self-

interests relate to systems and outcomes. In saying, “If those anti-SUV groups want to come after me,

they’ve got the wrong person,” Karin appears not to understand that environmental ethicists argue with

the intention of achieving the best overall consequences for everyone. The utilitarian might view the

Mill’s writings also reveal a utilitarian perspective whereby right actions should be defined based on

their effects in terms of utility on the wellbeing of society. Although the motivation might be as simple

more environmentally-damaging consumer behaviors. It also means that even the best of intentions

cannot be used to justify a specific action by utilitarianism’s morals.

an overly extravagant personal luxury item, which contributes to negative externalities, is unjustifiable,

particularly when the funds could have been applied to options that boosted the overall societal utility

to a much higher level. Maybe those funds could have gone to create infrastructure, education, health

drive, or any other public service beyond the need to beautify and please Karin.

However, the utilitarian view at least provides some room for thinking about the value of Karin's utility

and freedoms within its cost/benefit analysis. In this case, Mill expounds that ethical actions would have

moral passions, as in the case of owning a Hummer and adventure for Karin does give her enough

intrinsic satisfaction to create a positive increase in total utility even if it has to correct for

environmental losses. Such precise utilitarian calculations are still difficult.

However, using the principles and priorities of utilitarianism, it appears to be very difficult to justify

Karin's emphatic assertion of her right to enjoy her Hummer without deeper consideration of the

distress she caused others. According to the utilitarian outlook, all stakeholders must be equally

Evaluating the Theories

blows that actually disqualify it from being an acceptable ethical system, at least with regard to this

example.

Another problem with the egoist justification is that it is circular – it does not consider the effect of an

action, as moral or otherwise, on anyone other than the agent. However, ignorance of moral issues

beyond the self or immediate group is highly undesirable in contemporary liberal society. Ethical

philosophy is the branch of reason that explains the impact of individual actions on the totality of

society and the world. The egoist failed to consider this goal when claiming that ethics are reduced to

pure self-interest.

In applying this to Karin’s case, there are two fundamental flaws with egoism: While this is a valid

conclusion, egoism does not adequately address the negative externalities inflicted on others and the

principle to consider the totality of individuals and how the individual action affects the overall utility of

everyone. It requires moral agents to transcend the self-serving attitude and consider other impacts

resulting from their actions on the system and context. This all-encompassing view thrusts a

consideration of some reasonable individual freedoms against the failure to be too detrimental to the

aggregate well-being of other people – a familiar necessity.

On issues such as environmental morality, utilitarianism gets closer to our ordinary moral thinking. It is

grounded on the altruistic inclinations inherent in all persons, emphasizing the reduction of suffering

and the enhancement of well-being for all stakeholders impacted by an action or policy. While perhaps

requiring too strict a requirement that actions always bring about the greatest net benefit or utility,

utilitarianism at least embodies a self-conscious respect for indirect costs like those of Karin's Hummer

interest.

An obvious objection is the claim that the utilitarian calculation is rather vague and arbitrary in its real-

life application. It calls for imperfect modeling of how actions result in changes in welfare, which utilities

to promote, and where to delineate the sphere of 'all affected.' Still, ethical egoism goes even further,

completely ignoring any values/benefits of others besides the agent's self-interest. Its self-interested

ethic is wholly unsuitable for addressing structural processes that, by their very nature, require

balancing conflicting stakes.

conclusions. To find ethical frameworks, one may focus on those that incline to cooperation, stability,

universality, and psychological receptiveness in society. Utilitarianism appears stronger by aligning itself

with the general conceptions of justice and non-malevolence and underscoring that individuals are

contemporary globalized world since it does not consider such actions' repercussions actions. On the

other hand, while not entirely proscriptive, utilitarianism does impose the obligation of looking at all the

affected interests and considering the evident human and environmental ramifications of one's actions.

It offers a mode of ethical thinking that is not only purely self-interested but thus more reasonable for

problems like those of Karin's Hummer.

Conclusion

Through the evaluation of Karin Strickland's reason for owning a Hummer, ethical egoism and

utilitarianism are applied, and the utilitarian ethical perspective is seen as the sounder and rational way

of thinking. While egoism may be used to justify the selfish pursuit of Karin's happiness as a person, this

perspective has a fatal flaw – the inability to consider the adverse effects on others or their