This essay explores the relationship between egoism, altruism, and
the idea that no one can emotionally hurt you unless you allow it.
To begin, it's important to define the key concepts. Egoism is the
view that people are—or should be—primarily motivated by
self-interest. This comes in two forms: psychological egoism, which
claims we always act in self-interest whether we realise it or not,
and ethical egoism, which argues that we ought to act in ways that
serve our own well-being. Egotism, by contrast, is an inflated sense
of self-importance and often involves disregarding others entirely.
On the opposite side is altruism, the view that we should care for
others for their own sake, even at our own expense. Some believe
altruism is real; others claim it’s simply disguised egoism. These
ideas raise serious questions about morality, authenticity, and
emotional resilience—including whether it is possible to be hurt by
others at all, or whether we choose our responses from within.
Egoism and Self-Interest
Egoism is considered to be a harmless form of selfishness. It means doing good for others, but being motivated to do so simply because you enjoy it. It is the enjoyment that you want; the good results for others are merely a side-effect. This can be seen as harmful in the sense that it puts your personal enjoyment above other people's happiness.
Ethical egoism holds that all your actions should be for yourself, and that this benefits others too—because when you're happy, you tend to make others happy. It makes you feel better, and this radiates outward. Egotism, however, is an extreme form of egoism that demands you trample others to get what you want. Altruism opposes both, insisting that we should be other-centred.
Auguste Comte’s altruism goes even further. It teaches that we don’t matter at all—only others do. But even then, at least some self-interest has to be involved, even if it's just a warped version of it. Some would say it’s actually selfish to have such a degrading view of ourselves and to expect others to want our company.
Virtue, Desire, and Motivation
Psychological egoism claims that no matter how unselfish we seem, we are in fact always acting for ourselves—and we can't help it. According to this view, the altruist is right to help others but wrong to pretend they do it purely for others' sake. They do it because they want to, because they get something out of it. As the saying goes, “virtue is its own reward.”
So you might help others even if you hate doing it, because under the circumstances, you still want to. You never help others to make them feel better—you do it to make yourself feel better, even if that’s just the knowledge that you’ve done the right thing. After all, you have no control over how someone else feels. Others feel better only if they let themselves. If they do feel better because of something you did, then in reality, they made themselves feel better. You didn’t really do anything to them.
If you want to bandage John’s wounds, it's because you want to fulfil the desire to help him. So it is the desire that is important to you—not John, and not his wounds. You may see a fallacy, "Just because a desire is mine does not mean it is about me". Yes but that is oversimplified. It is like, "Just because I have your bike does not mean it is mine". We are not talking about an object but how desire is part of you, an extension of yourself.
Egoism is a major pillar of informed atheist thought. I cannot say "humanist" because humanists often argue that we can be selfless and that we should serve everybody.
The Limits of Human Nature
We are assuming here that human nature cannot do any good for another unless it gets something out of it. If you can't save a drowning baby unless you get some benefit (even just the reward of thinking you did the right thing), then you're still all for yourself. You would let the baby drown if you saw no benefit to yourself.
So far, we’ve learned that if we can avoid being hurt by the fact that others help us because there is something in it for themselves, then we gain power. We can stop what another does to us from attacking what we are inside.
Even without that, we know it is possible to be violated by someone
and yet give them no power to degrade us. That power is ours to
withhold.
What relationship does egoistic human nature have with that idea?
Are there risks?
But What If the Person You Help Feels Used?
Is there more selfishness in someone who knows they’ll get a lot out
of helping person A, compared to someone who knows they’ll get only
a little?
Does it matter? No. Selfishness is about what you are, not
what you do. A 100% selfish person will take one sweet just as
eagerly as they’ll take a whole pallet.
It has to be expected that some people will feel hurt upon realising that someone is using them to feel good. To avoid this, keep it human. That means: don’t help another person for God, or even mainly for God.
Egoism is godless—it implies that each person can and/or should serve only themselves, not God or others. But this service of self can still manifest as helping others. People benefit far more from the assistance of those with strong self-esteem than from those who neglect themselves. The more you love yourself properly, the more others benefit.
God, Feelings, and Emotional Control
Egoism is about indulging desire. Why would God make us Gods to our
own egos and do miracles? Any devotion to him would in fact be
to our selves despite the appearance of having outsourced to God.
If we are naturally egoists, then the idea of God doing miracles as
signs is wrong.
All God would need to do is tweak our emotional responses. We think
we control our feelings, but we don’t if there is a God.
When I feel miserable and go for a walk to cheer myself up, it seems like I’m in control. But I didn’t make the good feeling—it happened on its own. It might not have happened at all. So I never truly control my feelings.
If I am an egoist, then my god is me. I can’t have another god. If God creates a religion with miracles and theology just to win me over, it only shows His ignorance of my nature.
To do things for God instead of people is egotism, despite its outward holiness. Use your self-centred nature to help real people—not beings that may not exist.
Keep it human, and the other person will think, “But I am like that too. It did me no harm to be helped by someone who got something out of it—even if it was just an internal reward.”
You may never feel more free and more happy than when you indulge your desire to help others. And if you do it to indulge, then you’re doing it for yourself, not for them.
It follows that even if we might be wrong, we should assume that
others help us for their own reasons, not for ours. And we should
want them to.
Egoism is doing good for others because you enjoy it. The enjoyment
is what you want. The good results for others are secondary. That
may be selfish, but in a corrupt and brutal world, does it really
matter? As long as people aren't using their selfishness to dominate
or destroy others, it may be the best we can hope for.
I Hurt Me, You Can’t Hurt Me
People worry about altruism, egoism, and egotism because they want to condemn selfish behaviour as harmful. But ask yourself: if you slap me and I’m traumatised, did you cause the trauma—or did I torment myself over it and blame you?
In this light, the question of whether your action was selfish or not becomes irrelevant.
This leads to a controversial idea: that the only selfish act is when the victim chooses to be a victim. As harsh as that may sound, some presentations of altruism plays a role in enabling this thinking and amplifies blame.
They encourage the idea that if someone insults me, it is not them who hurts me—it is me, letting myself feel hurt.
They imply that we should get used to being mistreated, and that it's better to endure suffering quietly than to react. That isn't altruistic—it’s cruel. It encourages the one doing the harm and shames the one being hurt. If you are sad or depressed, it’s your own fault. You get no sympathy. Your enemies might get hospital treatment before you.
Egoism is better than that. It upholds the individual’s right to come first. It allows the individual to be the cause of their own response, and to be supported in owning that.