05/26/2026
A defense of individualism (rational/conceptual self-interest, or rational selfishness) from the standpoint of Jungian analytic psychology (to be added to the more common economic, political, and ethical defenses). --
"[T]he basis of almost all psychological problems is an unsatisfactory relation to one's urge to individuality. And the healing process often involves an acceptance of what is commonly called selfish...The majority of patients in psychotherapy need to learn how to be more effectively selfish and more effective in the use of their own personal power; they need to accept responsibility for the fact of being centers of power and effectiveness. So-called selfish or egocentric behavior which expresses itself in the demands made on others [that is, other *selves*] is not effective conscious self-centeredness or conscious individuality. We demand from others only what we fail to give ourselves. If we have insufficient self-love or self-prestige, our need expresses itself unconsciously by coercive acts toward others. And often the coercion occurs under the guides of virtue, love, or altruism. Such unconscious selfishness [i.e. *irrational* selfishness] is ineffectual and destructive to oneself and others. It fails to achieve its purpose because it is blind, without awareness of itself. What is required is not the extirpation of selfishness, which is impossible but rather that to be wedded to consciousness and thus becomes effective."
- Edward F. Edinger, "Ego and Archetype." Shambala Publications, Inc.: Boulder, Colorado. 1972. Page 161. Print.
With a handful of very minor quibbles with the way a couple words are used here -- too minor to bother mentioning in this post -- this strikes at the heart of what's wrong with the nearly universally held belief that self-interest is a bad thing, rather than the standard and source of all virtue --
Man's inhumanity to man is not the result of "selfishness." The reason such villanies as r**e, murder, slavery, statism, military aggression, socialism, theft, etc, are immoral is *not* that they are self-interested acts but because they *violate* the self-interest of the victims.
Conversely, if I give aid to a man in suffering -- not because I'm forced to do so or shamed and pressured into doing so but out of sincere compassion -- this is does not prove "selflessness" is the basis of virtue, for four identifiably distinct reasons --
(1) I am *promoting* the self-interest of the recipient of my aid -- the promotion of self-interest is still the goal.
(2) Assuming it comes from my own conviction, then it feels *good* to me to do it -- the increase in oxytocin I get from the act is a self-interested act.
(3) Adopting a habit of authentic kindness in the long term is also a good policy to adopt in life, because while every particular act may not yield long-term benefits for me, the habit of doing so *in general* increases the likelihood that I will receive the same over longer periods.
(4) Most importantly, I am *not* self-sacrificing because I'm not giving up something I more for something I value less. I prefer the outcome that the recipient of my aid is better off over the time, energy, money, or whatever, I give up for that outcome.
A major part of the hostility toward self-interest stems from a confusion of terminology (yet another example of why I have recently coined the term "the fallacy of definitional neglect"). In a social, psychological, and ethical context, "the self" is just another name for consciousness or the mind. Voluntarily helping someone in need helps enhance the conscious experience of reality -- the *selves* -- of both myself and the recipient.
Rational self-interest is the basis and end goal of all morality and virtue.
