Why ethical egoism is not just about genes survival.

I want to reply to the most common counter arguments against ethical egoism.<br><br>*Ethical egoism is not based on psychological egoism!* <br>You can be an altruist person and still think that actions are morally justified if they benefit yourself. Altruistic actions are a means to feel better, hence you are actually acting in your own interest. <br>But I agree that the utilitarianism is an easier ethical system to adopt to altruist people than egoism. The other way around is not true. Therefore, Altruists cannot understand egoists. <br><br>Another counter argument (especially made by Kantians) is that ethical egoism cannot be universalized because if every person acts egostically, society and individuals will be worse off. That is true, but it is a logical fallacy to generalize one's action and make it universal. Firstly, ethical egoism only gives an individualistic ethic and does not tell other people what to do. Secondly, not every person is egoistic - plenty of people are altruists and plenty of people are utilitarians. We egoists cannot change that, so we cannot be blamed for other people. <br><br>*Altruists are not really selfless* <br>I am often told that altruists are really selfless and do not expect any reward or feel good afterwards. I doubt that statement, but I also doubt the intelligence of altruists if their actions were completely selfless. I have no real arguments against this argument, but you can try to observe altruist people behavior. Do they place themselves in a situation to save someone else? Do they do that repeatedly? While I doubt the egoistic interpretation of altruism, I think this is a debate that has no end. However, I think that egoists are more aware of their own behavior than altruists are. Of course, that is a very personal observation and I would love to hear what you have to say about it. <br><br>The biggest problem I have with altruism is that is ignores one of the individual's biggest interest: their own survival. Here is why I think that is the case: <br>The amount of money you have to pay to save someone's life is 2.5 million USD (Hayek 1933) (if adjusted by inflation it would be 50 million USD). That is how much society will spend to save one person's life. I do not know about you, but I have never made that much money. I never will. There is no thing as "we have to save everyone". There is only a budget which decides how much life costs. Hospitals have a budget too, and when one person's health treatment is too expensive, he's not treated (depending on the country of course). If you donate a dollar to the next homeless guy, you are taking money away from yourself to save a stranger. If you donate it to yourself, you are investing in someone you know better than anyone else. When you want to save another person, you are either putting yourself into a dangerous situation and risking your life or spending your money which you need for your own survival. There is nothing to gain from saving another person. You might feel good, but you are still acting in your own interest when you want to feel good. <br>You look out for your own budget and don't worry about how much society has to spend on you. Therefore, Altruism is not a viable ethic. You know your own budget better than a third party (society) does. You know better how you have to plan your life and budget to survive. You do not know anyone else better than yourself. Therefore, the investments in yourself will always make more sense than an investment in someone else. You are the first person that has to survive and then you can worry about others. <br><br>Every person has to look out for their own survival. If you are worried about the survival of others first, you will eventually fail to do so. You have to survive first, so then you have the capabilities to worry about others. Helping yourself first is not immoral. You have to help yourself before you can help others. It is your own survival that has the priority. I want to give an example to illustrate that. Imagine a doctor who has a covid patient in the emergency room. While he is working on the patient, the doctor realizes he has covid. If he does not take care of his own disease, he will most likely die and be unable to help the patient he is currently treating. Therefore, the doctor has to do what is best for himself, so then he can help his patients. If he is dead, he cannot help anyone at all. You are not a doctor who can treat patients, but you are a person who has to survive in this world. If you do not take care of yourself, you will die and will not be able to help anyone else.<br><br>**TL,DR**: Ethical egoism is often based on gene survival. I show that it is much more than that. It is about individual survival. Altruism often ignores a persons interest to survive and thrive. While altruism might seem like the more plausible and likable ethic, it is actually the system that makes less sense because you cannot worry about others if you cannot take care of yourself first.