When I’ve discussed the concept of egoism, and that I try to live my life in accordance with that principle, a question that comes up with some frequency will be along these lines:
“Can’t charity be egoistic?”
So, for instance, someone might say they donate to charity to help teach poor children to read. I myself would happily give money to this cause if I had the financial means. Literacy is so fundamental to any other learning, that I want to see all children able to read.
Perhaps my willingness to give to a charity of this type is irrational? I would be reducing the amount of money I have to spend on things I want or need. Isn’t that damage to my life? Am I being inconsistent?
Lets start with some fundamentals.
When we speak of the things necessary for sustaining one’s life, start with the basics. These are: food, clothing, and shelter. I’ll call these “material values” or “basic material values”.
The fundamental question is: Do you want to live? If you do, then you need food clothing and shelter. These are the basic material values you must produce or obtain in some way. If you are living at a level of poverty where you are unable to satisfy these basic needs, then I do think it would be contrary to the principle of egoism to give money to others. I’d regard any person who gives money to strangers when they can’t feed or clothe themselves as irrational. (We’ll leave aside preferring to save a close loved one, even if it means one’s own likely injury or death, such as a parent running into a burning building to save their child. This isn’t what most people mean when they speak of the concept of “charity”. This is a different context, and is not being addressed here. It has been discussed by Ayn Rand, who thinks this can be rational, depending on the person you are saving.)
The idea of “mans life“, if it means anything, must mean satisfying basic biological needs associated with food, clothing, and shelter. An egoist who wants to live must get these, if nothing else. They are “necessary” for life. (Although probably not “sufficient”.) In biological terms, they are necessary for “homeostasis“.
After those basic material values are satisfied, there are other things that could be called ‘emotional’ or ‘spiritual’ values. These are things that provide some sort of emotional satisfaction that isn’t as directly related to one’s survival as a biological organism. They often relate to the nature of the human mind and consciousness.
For instance, viewing art, watching movies, and friendships, are all examples of certain values that people pursue that are widely reported as making one’s life better, but in a less directly quantifiable manner. For instance, my own introspection tells me that I enjoy dancing. If asked why, I can give some sort of explanation, like: “I feel better physically afterwards,” or: “There is a sense of satisfaction in connecting my movements with music and a dance partner.” But, all of these explanations ultimately depend on my emotional state, which has to do with the nature of my consciousness as a human being. Ultimately, I cannot give someone a better explanation than: “I enjoy it.” I enjoy reading certain types of novels and short stories. Once again, I can give explanations like: “I enjoy seeing what it’s like to live in a different time and place from my own,” or: “I enjoy seeing people doing different things.” But, its much more difficult to quantify this, whereas I can quantify the need to eat in terms of a certain amount of caloric intake I need every day. (Although eating can have an emotional satisfaction component too, depending on the food.)
I suppose we could call this one’s ‘spiritual self interest’, or ‘psychological self interest’.
There are limits to such “psychological self interest”, however. Certain feelings need to be resisted. There are people who feel an extreme compulsion to engage in certain rituals to drive away intrusive thoughts. If this type of behavior becomes pervasive enough in your life, it’s called “obsessive compulsive disorder“.
Where you “draw the line” on certain “emotional/spiritual values” being genuine, versus a type of neurosis or mental illness, can be difficult to discern. Some people like certain types of highly unusual sexual practices. Some of these might just be “personal taste”, and some are actually self-destructive. It’s clear to me, however, there is a line, somewhere. Enjoying certain “non-standard” sexual practices, can add a little “spice” to your life, but this is not the same as someone who wants to have their genitalia nailed to a board. (Almost certainly irrational.)
Given the fact that man’s life is more than just biological homeostasis, it’s possible for charity to be part of one’s self-interest. In certain contexts, providing certain people with material assistance, even though you get no material benefit in return, could satisfy your emotional/psychological needs. It might satisfy your emotional mechanism in the same ways as art or friendship.
Dave Thomas, the founder of the Wendy’s restaurant chain, is a good example of this. He was adopted, and never knew his biological parents. Helping orphans with his wealth was very important to him. (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0858692/bio) Without claiming certainty about his motives, I would hypothesize this was based in his own life experiences. Dave had more than satisfied his material needs, and the needs of his family. So, he gave some of his wealth away to this cause. I can see why a wealthy, self-made man, adopted as a child, would fund a charity for orphans. He views his life as valuable and important. He would feel a close emotional connection to other orphans. (A sort of “empathy”.) You connect with those people in the same sense you connect with your friends -you have shared experience.
All of this said, I cannot say that charity makes sense for everyone. Even for people who have the financial means, they may just not get anything, emotionally, from providing material benefits to strangers without getting something in return. I view this as no different from the fact that some people might only like “missionary position” sex, with no desire for anything more “spicy” in the bedroom. (There are also people who don’t care for art.)
Is it common to call people who only want standard-position sex monsters? Will people verbally attack them, if they say they don’t like art on social media? Do we tell such people it’s their duty to go view art, and do it doggy style?
By contrast, does that happen when someone says they don’t want to give any money to total strangers?
Why the difference?
The difference is altruism. Altruism presents helping others as a moral duty. In fact, your life only has value insofar as you serve others. Self-sacrifice is the end-all, be-all, of your existence, according to the altruist.
Will some egoists provide some material support to some other people in certain circumstances? Probably. I’d even say it’s likely. (There are no “shoulds” or “duty’s” for the egoist. Just the desire to live, and realistic necessity.) Is charity the same thing as altruism? Definitely, no.