Report Blog Entry
Please bear in mind that this was made on a whim, and that I only did brief research into this specific topic before writing. This is simply my barely educated interpretation of this philosophical belief- and is majorly driven by my own preexisting opinion. Such is the nature of philosophy. Feel free to be as mean as you like in response, I enjoy a good debate! =3
Psychological egoism claims that every human action, no matter how polished it looks on the surface, serves the self. The idea unsettles people, they want to believe in something cleaner: “pure” love, “selfless” kindness, acts that exist for someone else entirely. But once you start pulling at the threads, those illusions unravel fast.
Think of the person who stays up late listening to a friend’s endless problems. They frame it as loyalty, compassion. But beneath the surface, it’s about the payoff: being seen as dependable, keeping the bond intact, avoiding the guilt of walking away. Even the most patient ear bends toward reward.
Take the lover who makes grand sacrifices, claiming devotion- what they’re really protecting is their own sense of significance, the fragile idea that their love means something. Remove the benefit, the validation, the emotional return, and watch how fast the sacrifice dries up.
That’s the thing: what people call altruism is really just selfishness with better lighting. Even in moments that appear self-destructive- someone throwing themselves into harm’s way, someone giving endlessly until they’re drained- the action usually feeds some deeper hunger. The hunger to matter. The hunger to avoid shame. The hunger to feel like a “good person.” It doesn’t diminish the gesture’s impact, but it corrodes the illusion that it was ever selfless.
What disgusts me is how tightly humans cling to the opposite story. They romanticize “unconditional” love, “pure” generosity, as if such things exist. They cannot tolerate the thought that every “I love you” is also an “I need you.” That every act of kindness is tethered to the desire to soothe the self. To accept psychological egoism is to admit that the entire theater of human interaction is driven by hunger, not virtue. And most people would rather die in denial than stare at that too closely.
I see it most clearly in conflict. Disagreements between friends, lovers, families- they rarely resolve because of mutual understanding. They resolve because both sides recognize that continuing the relationship is in their best interest. Compromise isn’t moral; it’s strategic. You give ground not out of generosity, but because you don’t want to lose the supply chain of validation, comfort, or belonging that the other person provides. Strip away the pretty words, and compromise is just survival.
The cruel irony is that understanding this doesn’t set me apart. I’m no different. Every gesture I make, every word of care I give, carries the stench of self-interest. Knowing the machinery doesn’t stop it from turning. I still hunger. I still cling. I still disguise need as affection, selfishness as sacrifice. Maybe that’s the bleakest part: egoism doesn’t kill the act, it just kills the illusion that the act meant anything more.
Humans congratulate themselves for their capacity for “love,” “loyalty,” “generosity.” But strip away the costumes, and you see the same machinery grinding underneath it all. Every act begins and ends in the self. What people call altruism is only the performance. What people call love is only the transaction.
This blog was inspired by another post on the same subject, check it out: https://blog.spacehey.com/entry?id=1337802
Comments
Displaying 1 of 1 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
iMarisXIV_starry
And to your words, that is exactly what makes us human.
We learn, and cope, and nurture ourselves to shape our flesh into a contortion of influenced blood and touched bones. As humans, we want to feel valued, and in doing so — we rely on altruism, or the basics of it.
We do good, because we want to feel good.
And of course, it's very diminishing and justapositioned towards the actions of pure, intensifying love. But we're humans. Animals.
We cannot, we do not have the capacity to differentiate the fine line between emotions. Sure, we can put labels and definitions, but they're still this- obsessive, passionate feeling our heart thrums out through our veins, no?
And even if it was for moral gain, we've been so conditioned to become such a samaritan, going beyond that—through anarchy, would outcast oneself into a reclusive life of loneliness. So we play. We act. We produce the art of ourself.
Because to be human, is to be a disgusting contortion of sewn flesh from those we love.
After all, if it makes both parties happy and healthy, I don't see any possible issues.
Thank you for sharing!! I enjoyed reading your blog!!(^-^)/
I see what you mean! =) That this hunger for validation and comfort is what makes us human, that it’s the engine behind our bonds and our sense of belonging. I don’t disagree with you there. Where I can’t quite align, though, is in treating that as something redeeming. To me, the fact that we “do good because we want to feel good” doesn’t ennoble the action, it only underlines its transactional core.
Yes, we can call that humanity, but that doesn’t dissolve the bleakness of it. It just means that what people celebrate as “pure” love or “selfless” generosity is better understood as self-preservation in prettier clothes. You’re right that we act because otherwise we’d be outcast, lonely, adrift. But to me, that only confirms that even our grandest gestures are anchored in need.
If both parties walk away happy, sure, maybe that’s enough. But really I just like to ponder the inner workings of these sorts of things---I often come out with a bit of a pessimistic view, and the way I like to write accentuates that lmao.
Thank you for taking the time to actually formulate a thought provoking reply to my nonsensical rambling, it means a lot!! ^_^
by SmogHotdog; ; Report