Does rational egoism work?
A common objection to atheism and moral nihilism is that societies are built on religious values or at least moral values, and those that aren’t built on religion are generally seen as immoral or at least inhumane, like China and communist Russia. Atheists often respond to that objection by saying that societies can be based on rational egoism, and that the failure of godless societies does not disprove atheism as the basis for building large civilizations. Frankly, I think that this line of reasoning taken by atheists is wrong.
First, let’s acknowledge that even if atheism and moral nihilism cannot be used as bases for large civilizations, it would not make these beliefs false, or, as I like to say, inaccurate to our experiences. It would, at worst, make them useless for civilization-building. However, let’s examine the atheist proposal for societal building – rational egoism. For those unaware, the idea is that everybody just does what benefits them, and it just so happens that existing in a large functioning society is the easiest way to acquire a large amount of goods and satisfy needs. And so, it is in the interest of the people, even on an individual level, to build large societies. And while I think this idea is deeply flawed, it isn’t easy to see where it goes wrong.
As always, let’s use the language of utility to analyze the idea of rational egoism and see where it goes wrong. It is indeed a positive experience to live in a civilized society compared to an anarchic hellscape for any self-respecting egoist. The question is, how do we actually get there? How do we decide to dedicate parts of our lives to projects that will not benefit us in this life? Who fights in wars? Who creates law enforcement systems? Who cares for the weak and the elderly? Who does research? Who engages in any sort of activity that does not have a certain and immediate benefit?
I believe most people who advocate for rational egoism as a replacement for the theistic societal base will struggle to answer these questions. They could cite empathy and the fact that you don’t actually know for sure if a certain action won’t benefit you in your lifetime. Of course, it isn’t enough to encourage most people to engage in activities described above. But, one of the core ideas of Phenoutilism is that we actually always do only what we like. Does that mean that objectivity of moral systems was just a necessary lie we stumbled upon that immensely helped us, but wasn’t true or accurate to our experiences? Not quite.
We only do what we like, and the creation of objective moral systems was a by-product of us doing something we like. Some actions, like cooperation, benefit a society as a whole, and some don’t, like theft and murder. So we create moral systems, perhaps even subjective, and then objectify them to make them have greater convincing power. In any case, out of our natural rational egoism sprang forth multiple moral systems, not necessarily religious, but such that they were deemed “true” and thus heavily enforced. I don’t think that someone created a moral system specifically to establish or sustain a society. And the larger societies that did not have a coherent moral system died out, so here we are.
But what if we do start with a premise that morality is not objective? Can we still build large civilizations? I actually think we can. There will be people who will produce long-term goods, and they will, in fact, do it for selfish reasons. People derive high utility from many sources. From wanting to learn about the natural world, to the satisfaction of empathetic instincts by helping and protecting each other. That would answer our questions about who would fight in wars, why a society would help the disadvantaged, and who would do the unrewarded research necessary for advancements.
But most importantly, perhaps there are people that actually want to live in a more structured and predictable environment, and those will be the people who will create laws and institutions. There are other social values. Some people want fame, some want to achieve something, to create something great, and are willing to work with like-minded people for it. There are people who enjoy creating new and adapting existing moral systems rooted in their practical application. It could perhaps be harder for that last group of people to acknowledge the subjectivity of their moral systems, but some can for sure. All these people, by pursuing their own goals, can create large-scale civilizations with intricate legal and moral systems and work together to achieve a greater good.
