What Is Psychological Egoism?

Direct Answer

Psychological egoism is the empirical thesis that every human action is ultimately motivated by the agent's own perceived self-interest. On this view, even apparently altruistic acts, such as risking one's life to save a stranger, are explained by deeper self-regarding motives: the desire to feel like a hero, to avoid guilt or social disapproval, or to relieve one's own distress. The theory is "psychological" because it purports to describe how humans actually are, and "egoistic" because it holds that the ultimate springs of action always concern the agent's own welfare. It is important to distinguish it from ethical egoism, which says that we ought to act in our own interest; psychological egoism says only that we inevitably do. It is also narrower than a general theory of motivation, since some self-interested desires, such as a desire for revenge, do not concern the agent's well-being at all.

Historical Context

Psychological egoism has a peculiar history: although it is widely discussed, few major philosophers have explicitly defended it. The two figures most often cited are Thomas Hobbes and Jeremy Bentham. Hobbes wrote in Leviathan (1651) that "no man giveth but with intention of good to himself," because all voluntary acts aim at the agent's own good. Bentham opened his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation with the claim that nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure, which "point out what we ought to do, as well as determine what we shall do," thereby endorsing a version of the thesis restricted to pleasure and the avoidance of pain, known as psychological hedonism. The most influential critic was Bishop Joseph Butler, whose Fifteen Sermons (1726) argued that self-love presupposes particular desires, including other-directed ones, and that pleasure is usually a byproduct rather than the object of desire. The debate was revived in the twentieth century as psychologists and biologists began to test altruism experimentally.

Key Arguments & Debates

The arguments for psychological egoism appeal to parsimony and to the phenomenology of desire. If all action can be explained by self-interest, the theory says, we need not posit a special class of altruistic motives, and introspection seems to show that every desire is in some sense one's own, so every satisfaction is one's own satisfaction.

The arguments against it are decisive for most philosophers. Butler's "stone" is that the desire for one's own happiness cannot exist without desires for things other than one's own happiness: to want to be happy is to want to satisfy desires, and if all desires were desires for one's own happiness, the chain would be empty. Moreover, the fact that a desire belongs to me does not make its object myself: I can desire that a stranger be saved, where the object of the desire is the stranger's welfare, not my own. Critics also charge that the theory is unfalsifiable, since it can always reinterpret apparent altruism as hidden self-interest, which makes it scientifically suspect rather than informative. Modern research in social psychology and neuroscience provides evidence of genuinely other-directed motivation, while evolutionary biology shows that altruistic behavior can evolve without any egoistic psychology, shifting the debate to the question of whether ultimate desires are ever genuinely altruistic.

Contemporary Relevance

The question of whether humans are fundamentally selfish matters enormously for policy and institutions. Economics has long assumed that agents pursue their own interests, and rational choice theory generalizes the assumption; if psychological egoism were true, altruistic appeals would be empty, and institutions would have to rely entirely on incentives and sanctions. If it is false, as most philosophers and much of the empirical literature conclude, then moral education, social norms, and appeals to compassion can genuinely shape behavior, and institutions can rely on more than self-interest. The debate also frames contemporary work on empathy, moral psychology, and the evolution of cooperation. Understanding psychological egoism, its weakness as a theory, and the reasons so many reject it is essential for anyone who thinks about human motivation and the design of institutions.

Related Concepts

Psychological egoism is often confused with, and must be distinguished from, ethical egoism, which is the normative claim that we ought to pursue our own interests. Its historical sources are the Hobbesian account of human nature and the Benthamite psychology that underwrites utilitarianism, and its metaethical implications are explored in moral realism vs anti-realism.

Further Learning

For authoritative treatment, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Egoism and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Psychological Egoism.