Is there a philosophy ideology that "whatever is beneficial to me, is the reasonable thing"?

Question

I have run into such people more frequently, and it is: whatever that is beneficial to them, that's the correct thing. (or the reasonable thing).

Is there a philosophy explanation or term for this kind of behavior?

Details: I can give an example here: if a person is to return something that was loaned to him, that is the reasonable thing. This is the "correct" thing to do. However, I may run into a person recently, and he claimed "everything you do, there will be risk involved. So if you don't get it back, that's a reasonable thing." So he is claiming he is correct if he does not return something, because there "should be" risk involved for lending something.

Answer 1

Praexology + Nietzsche's Egoist Ethics

This branch of philosophy that studies Human Action. This discipline no only says that whatever that is beneficial to them, that's the rational thing to do. As The Fundamental Axiom of praxeology says:

Humans Act rationally towards their ends.

the rationality in this manner:

Humans have desires, and they will act to fulfill their goals, everything that maybe said to claim the irrationality of their goals is either trying to impose some values in others or is a mistake of computation.

Although this is done at the cost (for some) of weakening the mathematical assumption that rational means perfectly rational. And the more agreeable downside of requiring taking the meaning of the sentence "the most beneficial to me" as considering fog of war.

Finally from this result is trivial to proof the claim "whatever that is beneficial to them, that's the correct thing" if just assuming that Nietzsche's Egoist Ethics in true.

Answer 2

People are motivated by their emotions, and this is what in effect defines what people perceive as beneficial to them.

Assessing "beneficial to me" on a really rational basis is beyond anyone's computation power. In practice, people can only reason from a very limited set of data, set which is determined by their emotions. For example, you stop collecting data because, well, you get tired or even exhausted, and then you have a really powerful emotion that tells you to stop now, and you just stop. It may be sometimes or possibly often better than nothing but there is no way to tell.

It is the culture which is arguably the most rational which has also produced global warming. This is not necessarily selfish behaviour, but it does demonstrate that humans can only reason from very limited data. This may be beneficial on some short term basis, but there can be no guaranty on some longer term.

We have been slowly discovering this for some time now. The consequences are only compounded and made much worse by the real selfishness of many people.

Answer 3

The only philosophy ideology I have come across that advocates this specifically is Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Although I have studied it in detail I don't happen to agree with it and I warn you it is highly controversial. I'll probably get lambasted by someone, pro or con, for just mentioning Ayn Rand here!

Search online for "The Virtue of Selfishness", which is the title of one of her books, for more info.

You may also be interested in Utilitarianism which "...accepts as the foundation of morals utility, or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."

However there are discussions and papers you will find online that suggest Utilitarianism could be a form of selfishness. The argument seems to stem from the question "happiness for who?"

Friedrich Nietzsche also espoused selfishness, most notably in his book Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Answer 4

I want to say that your friend follows egoism, which is defined by the IEP as "the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own action." The problem is that the majority of egoists in the majority of cases would return a borrowed object. The reason is simple, the long-term harms of being known as a theft would outweigh the short-term benefit of keeping the object. The idea that cooperation has such large long-term benefits and such small short-term costs that people should almost always cooperate is fundamental to egoism because without it, egoists cannot explain why people should follow basic morality laws, such as do not steal, do not murder, etc.

Your fiend seems to be doing something different. He seems to be saying that because you accepted that there was a risk associated with your action [i.e. you may not get the object back], other people are not responsible for compensating you a negative outcome of that action. The only thing I know that even resembles this line of reasoning is the legal doctrine "assumption of risk". I am no lawyer, but I know that assumption of risk does not apply to this situation for a number of reasons, not the least being that we are talking about morality and not legality.

Honestly, my best guess is that your friend does not have a defendable position and is using a weak argument to justify their actions. You could try pressing them on it, asking that since talking so someone carries the risk that the other person could respond with violence, would it be morally acceptable for you to punch them in the face. When they inevitably deny this, press them on why some risks, like those associated with lending an object, exempt people from liablity for their actions while other risks, like those associated with having a conversation, do not.

Answer 5

Consider what will happen to this individual if they follow this plan. They simply steal something from you. Maybe you tolerate it one time. If you tolerate it more than one time, you have to stop and ask yourself some questions about yourself.

But for ordinarily rational people, if somebody you knew straight up stold something from you, you would not continue being their friend. This is clearly not selfish of them, since it means they will lose friends. Even stealing from non-friends has consequences. So doing it will harm the thief.

What your (should be former) friend is doing is range-of-the-moment following of desire. This is the morality of a wild animal. It sees something it wants, so it moves to take it.

My brother has a dog and a cat. When the cat gets its food dish filled, it is necessary to stand guard until the cat finishes. Because the dog, who is much larger than the cat, will come and vacuum up the contents of the cat's dish. It does not matter how many times the dog is punished for this. If you walk out of the room, or even just turn your back, the dog will be there pushing the cat aside and emptying the cat's dish.

This is a pre-morality mind set. It is not egoism. See, want, take. There is no moral thought here.

Answer 6

This is egoism. The reverse is doing something against one's own interest because it is reasonable. This appears to be quite a rare character trait, especially among politicians.

Answer 7

Egoism seems to fit the bill i.e. in my book it matches the description provided in the OP. The opposite of egoism is altruism. and there's a lot going on between the two!