Understanding Selfishness

Some time ago, I wrote a post titled “Selfish Altruism” in which I listed at least four selfish reasons (originally elaborated by Richard Dawkins) that could motivate a person to behave altruistically:

1. Kinship: where one helps another who is genetically related and thereby aids one’s own genes

2. Reciprocity: where one helps another in the hope that one will receive a favor in return

3. Reputation: where one helps another to establish a reputation as an altruist either to gain superiority or in the hope that this will stand one in good stead in times of need

4. Superiority: where one displays largesse to demonstrate one’s higher status in society and gain the respect and admiration of others

All these factors can operate subconsciously and people who behave altruistically may not even be aware of them. They could be acting in that manner simply because it “feels good”, not realizing that evolution has created that feeling of goodness for the above reasons.

My aim in writing that post was to outline a secular basis for altruism and, therefore, I did not specifically mention altruism motivated by religion. Needless to say, religious people may also behave altruistically, driven by the purely selfish motive of getting heavenly rewards that they believe are attainable in the after-life.

Any of these possibilities can help us understand what is in it for the person who is behaving altruistically.

It is much easier to get people to behave in a particular manner if they can see how they will benefit from such a course of action. That’s why the “Golden Rule” of not hurting others is almost universally understood and widely accepted. People are able to realize that having such a rule also protects them from harm and are consequently more likely to abide by it. It is much harder to get people to comply with a rule if they do not see any gain to themselves from it.

Therefore, to the extent that everyone benefits, people will not object to taxes. Generally, that will cover expenditure on a few essentials such as national defense, police and, perhaps, the maintenance of widely used public infrastructure. However, when money collected from enforced taxation is used for the benefit of some, at a cost to others, there is much lesser willingness to contribute. This applies as much to taxpayer bailouts of loss-making corporations as it does to welfare expenditure. I don’t expect too much disagreement on the former, so let me focus on the latter.

These are just other forms of altruism on the part of the givers. But, in my opinion, the biggest difference is that they do not provide the contributors any of the selfish pleasures they would get from voluntary altruism. And that is why some forms of government expenditure are a harder sell. The rich do not even get a “Thank you” from the people who benefit at their expense. That is because socialist ideology has created a culture of entitlement where people have begun to take it for granted that is the duty of the rich to support the poor through taxes that they are forced to pay because the majority (usually made up of poor people) demands it. It is not difficult to see how that mindset develops because any self-respecting individual would hesitate to seek charity. What better way is there to get over that mental hurdle than to treat benefits obtained from other people’s money as one’s birthright?

The other alternative is to create the impression that the rich have all got their money by stealing it from the poor. Operating on that assumption, enforced redistribution becomes the same as retribution and can be portrayed as a ‘just’ action. This is not to say that rich people do not engage in illegal acts. Of course some of them do. But it seems to me that the sensible way of dealing with that problem is to legally prosecute the wrong-doers and levy suitable penalties. Applying a blanket tax on all rich people as a form of retribution for the bad acts of a few is, to my mind, as ridiculous as wanting to implant a microchip in the bodies of all poor people to track their whereabouts just because some poor people engage in robbery.

Freedom in general is incomplete without economic freedom. I find it hard to see any justification to force people to pay for something from which they do not think they benefit. The essence of economic freedom is voluntary exchange on the basis of informed consent. And that includes altruism. In my opinion, it is easier to get people to behave altruistically by appealing to their better nature. The predictable counter to this suggestion is that people are inherently selfish and need to be coerced. As already mentioned, there are many selfish reasons for which people will help others provided they get the satisfaction that comes with offering such assistance. History has shown that philanthropy flourished to the greatest extent at times when there was low taxation. The massive outpourings of generosity that are observed in response to appeals for help in the aftermath of natural disasters also demonstrate that altruism is very much alive. Moreover, I do not see why selfishness should be attributed only to rich people. It is just as easy to argue that poor people will continue to selfishly sponge off the productive efforts of others, thereby reducing the incentive to produce and pushing the economy into a vicious tailspin.

To me, it seems logical to operate on the basis that every single individual in the world is selfish and will look after his or her own interests. That includes industrialists, politicians, consumers and religious leaders. Consequently, I consider any system that assumes that some people will behave selflessly to be logically flawed. Selfishness does not imply anarchy (because of purely selfish adherence to the golden rule) and selfishness does not exclude selfish altruism.

I often hear from friends about how drivers and domestic helpers switch jobs for paltry increases in salary and how difficult it is for them to retain their employees. Hearing such things warms my heart because I see the free market operating in all its glory. At the same time, I know of several people whose helpers have remained with them for years even though they are not exorbitantly well-paid. Clearly, employees also value working in an environment where they are treated with dignity and respect in addition to being paid fairly. In a free and active labor market, employers who treat their employees well will naturally enjoy better rates of retention. Underlying all this are the basic concepts of freedom and choice. People should be free to buy or do what they want and not what some intellectuals think they ought to want.

Contrast this with the functioning of the average government department. The absence of the profit motive (and the attendant risk of being put out of business by demanding consumers) creates an environment of lackadaisical service. The American public school system is as good an example as any of disastrous inefficiency.

The other problem with governmental influence is corruption. The more power any government has, the more corruptible (and, therefore, corrupt) it becomes. There is no better way to assess this than to see what kind of people are motivated to go into government. If there were no opportunity to make money, it would never attract the dregs of society the way it does in many places at present. Even in the best of places, where there is a concentration of governmental power, top positions are taken up by people who have the ability to put together the biggest amounts of financial contributions.

The only way I see to break this nexus is to reduce the power of government. We have to understand and accept that government is an unfortunately necessary evil whose role should be kept to the bare minimum. It is not possible to define once and for all what that role should be, because society is always changing. I think it will be helpful, though, to have active debate about finding effective private solutions wherever possible and leaving government to do only the residual tasks. In other words, reliance on government should be the very last option and not the automatic first choice. Such a government will attract only those who are motivated (by selfish altruism) to serve because there will be very few other powers and fringe benefits. Any assumption that it is possible to have a powerful government run by selfless people is unrealistic. But, sadly, that is the trap into which Western capitalism is falling right now.