Are you altruistic? Altruistic means you are for others without seeking any reward for yourself at all. For the purpose of argument we will assume you can be. Not all are persuaded.
Are you egoistic? Egoistic means you help others and seek something in it for yourself - be it good feelings, self-approval, heavenly reward etc.
Are you egotistic? Egotistic means you help others but it is really about using them to get something you want. For example, you bring meals to your neighbour for free but your real goal is to get into his safe and steal from him.
Generally the answer is believed to be based on if you are purely or mainly one of those. An act would be classed as altruistic if it were 60% altruism and 40% not.
We reject a motive being x per cent altruism and y percent egoism/egotism. It is two separate motives. It is two separate conversations.
Do we have a mixture of motives? We mean mixture has in separate motives coming together not as in an act literally being unselfish and selfish say at the one time.
The mixture idea is based on how your action has several causes. One minute you are focused on what you can get out of it. The next minute you are not. The causes being mixed do not mean you can be both at the one time.
You cannot do x and be the altruist, egoist and egotist all at once when doing so.
So which one is x then?
1 Some say it is the strongest one.
2 Some say the last cause defines what it was.
3 Some say we need to take in all the causes into account and decide which one of them appeared the most.
We warn that there is a risk of bias. Human nature wants the labels to put you and your behaviours in a box and pressures you to go along with it.
You will not stop others using the three labels and you use them yourself. You want them to and you want to do it.
It is egotism to lie. Egoism and altruism claim to be good or healthy. Maybe they are. But if we need to lie that we have seen them then that is egotism. How great are they really if they need a lie?
We cannot prove which one of the three is valid. We may just pick one randomly. So altruists say it is cynical to see a self-sacrificing act and to call it egoistic or egotistic. But they have no right to be that firm.
The paradox is this. It does not refute altruism. But it refutes the alleged altruism and goodness of saying a particular deed or person is altruistic.
Psychology generally proposes that a person is a mixture, perhaps of the three, and that every motive is a mixture as well.
It should not.
It is a fact that my desire and my motive is part of me, an extension of me. That is the answer to, "My desire or motive being mine does not mean it is about me." The answer does not tell us if it is all about me or partly.
Suppose the mixture claim is true.
I feed my dying father.
I feed him for his sake. Altruism.
And I feed him because I like feeding him. Egoism.
And I feed him because I don’t want people to talk about me if I don’t. Egotism.
I can feed him for any one of these motives. I don’t need a mixture.
I may not even be mixing. So why do people want to tell me I am?
As we learned earlier, I cannot feed him for his sake and not for his sake at the one time. I cannot have a mixture.
Yet I want people to think I do need a mixture and am mixing. That makes it harder for people to see the real me. I want to hide something from them.
Suppose I could have a mixture. What if I refuse to turn off the other motives and feed him for the sake of altruism alone? I insult altruism.
Some would go as far as to ask if my altruism is really altruism? Is it really love to give a child a jelly bean instead of a bar of chocolate when you can?
If we have a mixture, then how do you know which motive is the strongest one? Is it the altruistic, egoistic or egotistic one? We know from psychology that we do not know ourselves as well as we think. So to tell ourselves it is definitely altruistic makes us fall into contradiction. It is not altruistic to risk lying to ourselves. It is not humble to be so sure we are selfless. Many believe we are primarily psychological egoists or fully psychological egoists. It would not matter which when it is alarmingly easy to deceive ourselves.
There is a school of thought that says an action cannot be all three at once. They say in reality there are three different actions treated as if they are one. In other words, you help. Help is made of three actions. One to help your father. A separate one to help you feel good. Another distinct one to get praise from others. It is not three actions turned into one. But three action under the same umbrella.
Suppose it is egoistic (it is actually egotistic) to look after the sick for money or some benefit. Suppose a woman attends a counsellor for she is guilty that she only tended her dying father to please her family and not as much for his sake. Is it any help to tell her that she didn’t do it all for her own sake but partly for him? Of course not. Every human being is uncertain about how pure their good deeds are. We might as well believe then that psychological egoism is true. I am not saying we should. I am saying we may as good as believe it even if we don't.
Let us do a test on altruism.
For Comte, it means we don’t matter while other people do. Imagine we help more by following it. Imagine 100 people are helped.
For most philosophers, it means balancing your own needs with taking care of others. Imagine we are less effective at doing good if we follow this form. Imagine it is 95 people. Or even 60. It does not matter.
Imagine we had to choose one or the other. The true altruist picks the first. If both are problematic, we have to pick the least terrible.
This test shows that Comte was right about altruism and the version we are all taught about is corrupted.
Some argue that the Comte version is alarmingly like passive-aggression. If so, its practitioners may claim to be getting nothing from serving others. But they are - they are fulfilling their dark craves.
We conclude that classic altruism depends on being lied about and is not real altruism. That means we are egoists or egotists.
There is no mix of altruism, egoism or egotism possible. If there were a mix, it is one of confused altruism, egoism and egotism.
If it takes a process of elimination, to show that our actions are largely if not totally about our self-interest then so be it!
FINALLY:
Altruism has some bad fruits for something that is supposed to be wonderful. Altruists don't like to be told that for then the suggestion arises: "If it does harm it must be flawed so we may as well be egoistic/egotistic." No refutation of that is possible.
We can only be either egoistic or egotistic at any moment in time. Altruism is often egoism posing as altruism. People say they mix them all the time. They cannot for switching from one to the other is not mixing. I would warn that the mixed motive ethos brings financial gain to therapists. They need things to be more complicated than they are to keep the client coming in the door.
APPENDIX
Thesis to Refute:
"When I act, I may have a mixture of altruistic and self-interested motives."
[Read this and read it again in the light of the Christian claim that you can and must be selfless towards God. Altruism would be difficult and do you want to make it worse by saying there is a God who alone ultimately matters or comes first?]
Refutation Strategy:
1. Conceptual Incompatibility Argument
Claim: Altruism and self-interest are mutually exclusive by definition.
Reasoning:
Altruism is acting solely for the benefit of others, even at personal cost.
Self-interest is acting to benefit oneself.
If a motive is partially self-interested, then it's no longer purely altruistic.
Conclusion: The moment self-interest enters the motive, it contaminates altruism. So, a “mixed” motive is just self-interest in disguise or a form of disguised egoism.
2. Purity of Intention Argument (Deontological critique)
Claim: Only the dominant intention counts ethically and psychologically.
Reasoning:
From a Kantian perspective, moral worth lies in acting from duty, not from inclinations or personal gain.
If an act is partially motivated by self-interest, its moral worth (as altruism) is compromised.
Therefore, either the altruistic motive governs the action or the self-interested one does — they can't co-rule without contradiction.
3. Psychological Egoism (strong version)
Claim: All actions are ultimately self-interested, even if they appear altruistic.
Reasoning:
When we help others, we often feel good about it, preserve social reputation, or avoid guilt.
These feelings suggest the true motive is internal satisfaction, not concern for others.
Conclusion: What looks like a mixture is actually self-interest cloaked as altruism.
4. Unity of Agency Argument
Claim: Human agency requires a single, unified intention at the point of decision.
Reasoning:
When we deliberate, we choose based on which motive wins out.
There may be competing influences, but ultimately only one motive becomes action-guiding.
Conclusion: While motives may compete, the action itself is driven by a dominant motive, not a mixture.
Counterpoint Anticipation & Rebuttal
Objection: But I can help a friend because I care about them (altruism) and because I want to feel like a good person (self-interest).
Rebuttal: True, you may have multiple thoughts, but at the moment of acting, only one motive ultimately drives the decision. The rest are background noise unless they directly cause the action.
Final Summary
The idea that actions are driven by a mix of altruistic and self-interested motives is conceptually unstable. Either altruism is real and must be pure, or it's always reducible to self-interest. Mixing the two undermines the definitions of both. A truly altruistic act cannot have self-interest in it, and if self-interest is present, it's no longer altruism.