Altruism: Prioritizes the needs and well-being of others over the self, often to the point of self-sacrifice.
Egoism: The view that people act in their own self-interest, though this may still involve compassion and cooperation with others when beneficial.
Egotism: Harming others for your own gain.
Altruists claim that choosing to be egoistic, or worse egotistic, is random.
Altruism is supposed to be the compelling choice.
Why Should I Come First Rather Than My Neighbour?
When someone asks, “Why should you come first rather than your neighbour?” they are implying that putting yourself first is unjustified.
But the reverse question is just as valid: “Why should your neighbour come first rather than you?” In either case, a justification is needed. Neither egoism nor altruism can be dismissed as arbitrary without dismissing the other on the same grounds.
So the accusation of arbitrariness, if applied consistently, challenges both positions equally — not just egoism.
Is Egoism Arbitrary?
Egoism holds that your own well-being is your primary moral responsibility. This is not just preference — it’s based on a fact about human experience: that you are most directly aware of your own life. While you can question many things, including the external world or others’ experiences, you cannot rationally doubt your own existence. Even to have an illusion or error, there must be a self to experience it.
From that foundation, some argue it makes sense to treat one’s own well-being as a central concern. This doesn’t justify ignoring others or acting cruelly. Rather, it frames ethical action as something that begins with the self — not ends there.
Egoism Is Not Egotism
Egoism is often confused with egotism, but the two are very different:
Egoism is the view that acting in one’s own self-interest is rational and morally valid.
Egotism is an inflated sense of self-importance and disregard for others.
Egoism can involve caring for others, building trust, and contributing to communities — if those things align with a person's values and well-being. It doesn’t require selfishness in the narrow or harmful sense.
What About Altruism?
Altruism asks us to put others first, sometimes at significant personal cost. If altruism is to be more than a preference, it needs justification — just as egoism does.
Critics of altruism argue that, taken to extremes, it can become self-erasing: requiring people to value others’ needs above their own in all situations. But this, too, depends on how altruism is defined and practiced. Many people act altruistically because it aligns with their personal sense of meaning, not because they reject self-interest entirely.
Again, that makes altruism a reasoned choice, not necessarily an arbitrary one — but not inherently more rational than egoism.
Is Choosing Between Theories Just a Coin Flip?
Some argue that if we have two opposing moral theories (egoism vs altruism), and no clear proof to choose one, then picking either is random.
But this misunderstands how philosophical reasoning works.
Ethical theories can be chosen based on:
Consistency with our experience
Coherence with our values
Practical outcomes
Psychological plausibility
Choosing a theory on the basis of reflection, coherence, or lived relevance is not arbitrary. It's reasoned — even if it's not definitively provable in a scientific sense.
Acting from Motive, Not Just Appearance
Some critics suggest that helping others out of self-interest (to feel good, look good, or gain social reward) is less morally “pure.” But whether actions are egoistic or altruistic in motive, what matters is whether they are chosen intentionally and reflect one’s values.
In either case, the choice isn’t random — it comes from a framework of meaning, motivation, and identity.
Final Thought
There are egoists, altruists, and egotists in the world — and people often live a mix of these values. But none of these positions are necessarily arbitrary just because they differ.
The key is to examine the reasons behind the choice.
If you choose to prioritize yourself, that can be based on your awareness of your own life, your needs, and your responsibilities. If you prioritize others, that can be based on empathy, connection, or a broader sense of duty. Each of these has its own logic. So the accusation of arbitrariness should not be used to dismiss an ethical view outright. The real test is whether your view is coherent, reasoned, and lived with integrity.
APPENDIX: Saying, “If I see no benefit in helping certain people, I should leave them to the wolves,” opens egoism to the charge of arbitrariness, because it relies on personal perception, which can be short-sighted, biased, or inconsistent. A better egoist position would say: "I act in long-term, informed self-interest — not just based on immediate gain." Helping others can still serve your own flourishing — by building trust, reputation, or emotional well-being — even if the reward isn't obvious.
In short:
Egoism isn't arbitrary if it's guided by consistent principles, not moment-to-moment convenience. Thoughtless selectivity makes it self-defeating.
APPENDIX: EGOISM IS FIRMEST ON THE VALUE OF HAPPINESS
Egoism believes in the right of each person to be happy and to be their own person. Altruism as we have seen and egotism agree but seem to dilute it.
Some ethical egoists, along with their critics, seem to think that being happy yourself puts you in conflict with the happiness of others. This view makes working for the happiness of others seem self-destructive. That is a mistake for while certain things that make me happy might have to make another unhappy, in general I cannot be happy unless the people around me are sufficiently happy. In most cases, my happiness is taking from nobody else's or theirs mine. It does not follow that if each person works for their own happiness that they cannot all be happy.