Well, suppose your opinion began to be wiped off because of your investigative analysis, which ends with someone calling you perverts on the street at the age of 3, and now you have received a ban from your neighbors to run out onto your own balcony and puke under their windows, from why you have an inferiority complex and you cannot reveal your talents to the end. As in most cases, your case is unique, because now life forces you to survive, and instead of being proud of your tactical advantage, you find a flaw!!! And not in yourself, but for example in a neighbor, and as usual it is customary to act, prepare for war. I agree, at the first stage everyone should make mistakes, but not you, having taken a book on jurisprudence, close it with disgust, wondering where it will end up with a neighbor, and it seems like your plan is 100% successful, provided that the neighbor does not have a boot there bati (after talking about "dirty shooting"). This is what I think, we do not need assumptions, we need an absolute plan where your victory will be an undeniable success, and your popularity will transcend the boundaries of the natural and we are not talking about a Vaseline-smeared finger on a rubber glove. Let's take a look at what's stopping us first. modern world such a term as freedom is used, the essence of which includes only your lustful desires, permission to spoil where you were not noticed, but the point is this: EVERYTHING interferes with us. Why? You ask, I will answer: “it only gets worse!” ... no, it’s not that; you lose your temper with an uncontrollable desire to knock out “someone else's nonsense” - well, it’s already warmer; "you're shit" - yes! here it is. And this, as you know, is a double-edged sword, some teach you self-criticism, others teach you to worship yourself as a god, because a bad mood is the key to eternal depression, but all this is nonsense! Composure and concentration in fact does not require your mood, and this is a fact, because if you prepare yourself for something grandiose, your goal will come to you by itself ... that is, what am I talking about? Yes! Kill a neighbor, so if you act covertly, no one will know how you put him under the door, and no one will praise you if you arrange a Texas shootout, you can take a serious risk if the neighbor's pneumatics shoot a couple of meters further than your satellite-guided rail gun and a burning zone of 50 m with an inaccurate hit. So you are seriously prepared! Here's what we'll do: get a job as a sales manager in some dildo shop, and earn enough money to buy a chair, rope and soap, done! Plan B is fully assembled, but Plan A requires careful study, because. if you break a certain law, for example, they can set intermediaries on you (in the form of kids in identical sequined suits), if you are extremely weak, and your neighbor detects your actions in advance, you may not have time to save yourself. So we draw, according to all the laws of physics, chemistry and meanness, you can use those means that few people know about, for example, by throwing poisonous hamsters into an open window or send a notice to a neighbor about a parcel where it will be leaky closed jar with cucumbers, the main thing to know is that he must love cucumbers. And it seems that everything is popularity, you announce the search for these very hamsters who poisoned your neighbor, and in jars from under cucumbers your laminated business card with the inscription "dear mother-in-law, my prototypes", but this is not enough, your neighbor only unintentionally suffered, your defiant behavior in the form of constant farting in his presence will not create a special effect on others, the constant invitation of prostitutes to his house can only cause indignation among the rest, and gossip about his presence his weed can cost you sideways. Anticipating more plans, you suddenly find out that your neighbor is dying of diarrhea, and you won the invisible war, having received the status of “victories specialist!” unaccounted for by anyone, what to do? Plan b? nooo… wait! From the beginning, glory, for this we find out the cause and effect in death, let's get started: diarrhea could be caused by poisoning from the food he recently ate, break into his house, take all the crumbs from the table and floor for examination, study their origin, study the content of pesticides, soy , and toilets in them, we take a blood test, a corpse and ... stop! Wrong, we throw pieces of puffer fish into his apartment under the sofa, and announce that he often liked to go to Japanese restaurants and hide their food under the sofa, that's all !!! Did you kill him, no, you warned him, but he did not listen to you, who is right? Your ego and personality are in one whole, be proud ... because it's still within reason)))

EGOISM IS REASONABLE- an ethical doctrine, suggesting that: a) all human actions are based on an egoistic motive (wishing good for oneself); b) reason allows you to select from the total volume of motives those that constitute a correctly understood personal interest, i.e. allows you to discover the core of those egoistic motivations that correspond to the rational nature of man and the social nature of his life. The result of this is an ethical-normative program, which, while maintaining a single (egoistic) basis of behavior, assumes that it is ethically obligatory not only to take into account the interests of other individuals, but also to commit acts aimed at the common good (for example, good deeds). At the same time, reasonable egoism can be limited to stating that the desire for one's own benefit contributes to the benefit of others, and thus sanction a narrowly pragmatic moral position.

In Antiquity, during the period of the birth of this model of ethical reasoning, it retains its peripheral character. Even Aristotle, who developed it most fully, assigns it the role of just one of the components friendship . He believes that "the virtuous must be selfish", and explains self-sacrifice in terms of the maximum pleasure associated with virtue. The reception in the Renaissance of ancient ethical ideas (first of all, Epicureanism, with an emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure) is accompanied, for example, by L. Valla with the requirement to “learn to enjoy the benefits of other people.”

The theory of rational egoism is being developed both in the French and in the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment - most clearly in A. Smith and Helvetia . Smith combines in a single concept of human nature the idea of ​​an economic man and a moral man. According to Helvetius, a rational balance between the egoistic passion of the individual and the public good cannot develop naturally. Only a dispassionate legislator with the help state power, using rewards and punishments, will be able to provide benefits "possibly more people" and make the basis of virtue "the benefit of the individual."

The doctrine of reasonable egoism received a detailed development in the later works of L. Feuerbach. Morality, according to Feuerbach, is based on a sense of self-satisfaction from the satisfaction of the Other - the main model of his concept is the relationship of the sexes. Feuerbach tries to reduce even seemingly anti-Eudemonistic moral actions (primarily self-sacrifice) to the action of a rational-egoistic principle: if the happiness of the I necessarily presupposes the satisfaction of You, then the desire for happiness, as the most powerful motive, is able to resist even self-preservation.

The reasonable-egoistic concept of Η.G. Chernyshevsky is based on such an anthropological interpretation of the subject, according to which the true expression of utility, identical to good, consists in “the benefit of a person in general”. Due to this, when private, corporate and universal interests collide, the latter should prevail. However, due to the strong dependence human will from external circumstances and the impossibility of satisfying the highest needs before satisfying the simplest ones, a reasonable correction of egoism, in his opinion, will be effective only if the structure of society is completely altered.

In 19th century philosophy ideas related to the concept of rational egoism were expressed by I. Bentham, J.S. Mill, G. Spencer, G. Sidgwick. From the 50s. 20th century reasonable egoism began to be considered in the context of the concept of "ethical egoism". Consonant provisions are contained in the prescriptivism of R. Hear. A detailed criticism of the theories of rational egoism is presented in the works of F. Hutcheson, I. Kant, G. F. W. Hegel, J. E. Moore.

A.V. Prokofiev

Reasonable egoism is a term often used in the last years of the nineteenth century to denote a philosophical and ethical position that establishes for each subject the fundamental priority of the subject's personal interests over any other interests, be it public interests or the interests of other subjects.

The need for a separate term is apparently due to the negative semantic connotation traditionally associated with the term "egoism". If an egoist (without the qualifying word “reasonable”) is often understood as a person who thinks only of himself and / or neglects the interests of other people, then supporters of “reasonable egoism” usually argue that such neglect, for a number of reasons, is simply unprofitable for the neglectful and, therefore, it is not selfishness (in the form of the priority of personal interests over any others), but only a manifestation of short-sightedness or even stupidity. Reasonable selfishness in the everyday sense is the ability to live in one's own interests, without contradicting the interests of others.

The concept of rational egoism began to take shape in modern times, the first discussions on this topic are already found in the works of Spinoza and Helvetius, but it was fully presented only in Chernyshevsky's novel What Is To Be Done? In the 20th century, the ideas of rational selfishness are revived by Ayn Rand in the collection of essays The Virtue of Selfishness, the story Hymn, and the novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. In the philosophy of Ayn Rand, rational egoism is inseparable from rationalism in thinking and objectivism in ethics. Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden also dealt with rational egoism.

The concept of "reasonable egoism". This concept emphasizes that the social responsibility of business is simply “good business” because it helps to reduce long-term profit losses. By implementing social programs, the corporation reduces its current profits, but in the long run creates a favorable social environment for its employees and territories of its activities, while creating conditions for the stability of its own profits. This concept fits into the theory of rational behavior of economic agents.

The essence of reasonable selfishness is that in the economy it is customary to consider opportunity costs when doing business. If they are higher, then the case is not being conducted, because. you can, for example, invest your resources in another business with greater profit. Keyword- benefit. For the economy and business, this is normal.

But as for the sphere human relations- then the principle of profit (the leading principle of economics) turns people into animals and devalues ​​the essence of human life. Relationships in line with reasonable egoism are guided by the assessment of the benefits from various relationships with people and the choice of the most beneficial relationship. Any mercy, manifestation of selfless love, even true charity with the so-called. reasonable egoist - meaningless. Only mercy, philanthropy, charity for the sake of PR, receiving benefits, and various posts make sense.

Another mistake of reasonable egoism is the equating of good and good. This is at least not reasonable. Those. rational egoism contradicts itself.

Reasonable selfishness is the ability to find a balance between the needs of people and their own capabilities.

Reasonable egoism is characterized by a greater understanding of life, and this is more slim look selfishness. It can also be directed to the material, but the way of obtaining or achieving is more reasonable and less obsessed with "I, me, mine." Such people have an understanding of what this obsession leads to, and they see and use more subtle ways to get what they want, which brings less suffering to themselves and others. Such people are more reasonable (ethical) and less selfish, they do not go over the heads of others or through, do not commit violence of any kind and are inclined to honest cooperation and exchange, taking into account the interests of all with whom they deal.

The theory of rational egoism originates from the philosophical constructions of such outstanding thinkers of the 17th century as Locke, Hobbes, Puffendorf, Grotius. The notion of a "lonely Robinson" who had unlimited freedom in his natural state and exchanged this natural freedom for social rights and obligations was brought to life by a new mode of activity and management and corresponded to the position of the individual in an industrial society, where everyone owned some kind of property (let even only for their own labor force), i.e. acted as a private owner and, consequently, counted on himself, his own sound judgment about the world and his own decision. He proceeded from his own interests, and they could not be discounted in any way, since the new type of economy, primarily industrial production, is based on the principle of material interest.

This new social situation was reflected in the ideas of the enlighteners about man as a natural being, all the properties of which, including personal interest, are determined by nature. Indeed, in accordance with their bodily essence, everyone seeks to receive pleasure and avoid suffering, which is associated with self-love, or self-love, based on the most important of the instincts - the instinct of self-preservation. This is how everyone argues, including Rousseau, although he somewhat stands out from the general line of reasoning, recognizing, along with reasonable egoism, also altruism. But even he quite often refers to self-love: The source of our passions, the beginning and foundation of all others, the only passion that is born with a person and never leaves him while he is alive, is self-love; this passion is original, innate, preceding every other: all others are in a certain sense only its modifications ... Love for oneself is always suitable and always in accordance with the order of things; since everyone is entrusted first of all with his own self-preservation, then the first and most important of his concerns is - and should be - precisely this constant concern for self-preservation, and how could we take care of him if we did not see this as our main interest? .

So, each individual in all his actions proceeds from self-love. But, being enlightened by the light of reason, he begins to understand that if he thinks only of himself and achieves everything only for himself personally, he will face a huge number of difficulties, primarily because everyone wants the same thing - to satisfy their needs, means. for which there is still very little. Therefore, people gradually come to the conclusion that it makes sense to limit oneself to some extent; this is done not at all out of love for others, but out of love for oneself; Consequently, we are talking not about altruism, but about reasonable egoism, but such a feeling is the guarantor of a calm and normal life together. 18th century makes adjustments to these views. Firstly, they concern common sense: common sense pushes to comply with the requirements of reasonable egoism, because without taking into account the interests of other members of society, without compromises with them, it is impossible to build a normal daily life, it is impossible to ensure the smooth functioning of the economic system. An independent individual relying on himself, the owner, comes to this conclusion on his own precisely because he is endowed with common sense.

Another addition concerns the development of the principles of civil society (which will be discussed later). And the last concerns the rules of education. On this path, some disagreements arise among those who developed the theory of education, primarily between Helvetius and Rousseau. Democracy and humanism equally characterize their concepts of education: both are convinced that it is necessary to provide all people with equal opportunities for education, as a result of which everyone can become a virtuous and enlightened member of society. Asserting natural equality, Helvetius, however, begins to prove that all the abilities and gifts of people are absolutely the same by nature, and only education creates differences between them, and chance plays a huge role. Precisely for the reason that chance interferes with all plans, the results often turn out to be quite different from what a person originally intended. Our life, Helvetius is convinced, often depends on the most insignificant accidents, but since we do not know them, it seems to us that we owe all our properties only to nature, but this is not so.

Rousseau, unlike Helvetius, did not attach such importance to chance, he did not insist on absolute natural identity. On the contrary, in his opinion, people by nature have different inclinations. However, what comes out of a person is also largely determined by upbringing. Rousseau was the first to single out different age periods in a child's life; in each period, one particular educational influence is perceived most fruitfully. So, in the first period of life, one must develop physical inclinations, then feelings, then mental abilities, and finally moral concepts. Rousseau urged educators to listen to the voice of nature, not to force the nature of the child, to treat him as a full-fledged person. Thanks to the criticism of the previous scholastic methods of education, thanks to the installation on the laws of nature and the detailed study of the principles of "natural education" (as we see, not only religion is "natural" in Rousseau - education is also "natural") Rousseau was able to create a new direction of science - pedagogy and provided a huge impact on many thinkers who adhere to it (on L.N. Tolstoy, J.V. Goethe, I. Pestalozzi, R. Rolland).

When we consider the upbringing of a person from the point of view that was so important for the French Enlightenment, namely, rational egoism, one cannot fail to notice certain paradoxes that are found in almost everyone, but mainly in Helvetius. He seems to be moving along general ideas about selfishness and personal interest, but brings his thoughts to paradoxical conclusions. First, he interprets self-interest as material gain. Secondly, all phenomena human life, Helvetius reduces all its events to a personal interest understood in this way. Thus, he turns out to be the founder of utilitarianism. Love and friendship, the desire for power and the principles of the social contract, even morality - everything is reduced by Helvetius to personal interest. So, honesty we call the habit of everyone to do useful things for him.

When I, say, cry about dead friend, in fact, I am not crying about him, but about myself, because without him I will have no one to talk to about myself, get help. Of course, one cannot agree with all the utilitarian conclusions of Helvetius, one cannot reduce all feelings of a person, all types of his activity to benefit or to the desire to gain benefit. The observance of moral precepts, for example, causes harm to the individual rather than brings benefits - morality has nothing to do with benefit. The relationship of people in the field of artistic creativity also cannot be described in terms of utilitarianism. Similar objections were heard against Helvetius already in his time, and not only from enemies, but also from friends. Thus, Diderot asked what profit Helvetius himself was pursuing when he created in 1758 the book “On the Mind” (where the concept of utilitarianism was first outlined): after all, it was immediately condemned to burning, and the author had to renounce it three times, and even after he feared that he would be forced (like La Mettrie) to emigrate from France. But Helvetius should have foreseen all this in advance, and yet he did what he did. Moreover, immediately after the tragedy, Helvetius began to write a new book, developing the ideas of the first. In this regard, Diderot remarks that one cannot reduce everything to physical pleasures and material gain, and that personally he is often ready to prefer the most severe attack of gout to the slightest contempt for himself.

And yet it is impossible not to admit that Helvetius was right on at least one issue - personal interest, and material interest, asserts itself in the sphere of material production, in the sphere of the economy. Common sense forces us to recognize here the interest of each of its participants, and the lack of common sense, the requirement to abandon oneself and sacrifice oneself supposedly for the interests of the whole, entails the strengthening of the totalitarian aspirations of the state, as well as chaos in the economy. The justification of common sense in this area turns into a defense of the interests of the individual as an owner, and this is precisely what was and is still being blamed on Helvetius. Meanwhile, the new way of managing is based precisely on such an independent subject, guided by his own common sense and responsible for his decisions - the subject of property and rights.

Over the past decades, we have become so accustomed to denying private property, so accustomed to justifying our actions with disinterestedness and enthusiasm, that we have almost lost common sense. Nevertheless, private property and private interest are necessary attributes of an industrial civilization, the content of which is not limited to class interactions alone.

Of course, one should not idealize the market relations that characterize this civilization. But the same market, expanding the boundaries of supply and demand, contributing to an increase in social wealth, really creates the ground for the spiritual development of members of society, for the liberation of the individual from the grip of unfreedom.

In this regard, it should be noted that the task of rethinking those concepts that were previously assessed only as negative is long overdue. Thus, it is necessary to understand private property not only as the property of the exploiter, but also as the property of a private individual who freely disposes of it, freely decides how to act, and relies on his own sound judgment. At the same time, it is impossible not to take into account that the complex relationship between the owners of the means of production and the owners of their own labor force is currently being significantly transformed due to the fact that the increase in surplus value is increasingly taking place not due to the appropriation of a share of someone else's labor, but due to an increase in labor productivity. , development of computer facilities, technical inventions, discoveries, etc. The strengthening of democratic tendencies also has an important influence here.

The problem of private property today requires a special study; here we can only emphasize once again that, defending private interest, Helvetius defended the individual as an owner, as an equal participant in industrial production and a member of the "social contract, born and raised on the basis of democratic transformations. The question of the relationship between individual and public interests leads us to the question about rational selfishness and the social contract.

From childhood, we are taught to help the weak, to be caring and attentive to others, to take actions, and in some cases even sacrifice values ​​for the benefit of something or someone. And with all this, we must feel guilty about our own selfishness ever shown. Such a position, on the one hand, is absolutely correct and does not need to be refuted. But if you look at it from a psychological point of view, then some nuances are revealed to us that it would not hurt to clarify.

Psychology claims that all actions performed by a person, whether they are bad or good, are done only for the sake of own good. The most powerful motivation for every person when committing any actions is precisely hopeless egoism. Of course self-love is not the only driving force our activities, but it is always present and this is an indisputable fact!

In fact, selfishness in itself is not bad. After all, to fight the human race is to go against self-preservation instinct. The ideals and moral principles that have been instilled in us from infancy are a little not correct, in view of the fact that they consider a person vicious from birth and try their best to lock a person in the fetters of morality. But, as a rule, it is the established framework provoke human to bullying and atrocities.

There is an opinion that the feeling of selfishness negatively affects society and gradually destroys it, as a result of which it should be in without fail exterminated. But it is important to realize that the primary motive of selfishness is survival. In the event that order and position in society, from an objective point of view, will be enough effective way life, then egoism itself will only be happy with this alignment.

Naturally, this method, as a means of survival, has its own varieties. Exists two types of selfishness:

• reasonable;
• unreasonable.

Unreasonable selfishness is characterized by a clear obsession with oneself, own desires, needs, and the like. At the same time, the interests of the surrounding people noticeably shift not only to the background, but are practically ignored. The peculiarity of unreasonable egoism is that it brings suffering to everyone, and to a greater extent to its bearer. Often this species egoism is aimed solely at satisfying financial needs, and spiritual ones are not at all interested in him, which as a result only leads to trouble.

But today we are talking about reasonable egoism, which has tremendous differences from the previous one.

It manifests itself in a deep understanding of the meaning of life and oneself. Of course, it can also be aimed at certain material desires, but the very way to achieve significant goals is distinguished by special wisdom, intelligence and the absence of inadequate obsession with one's own personality. Reasonable egoists understand that everything should be in moderation and that excessive self-love can lead to negative consequences. With all this, they try to use those methods, when obtaining what they want, that bring minimal inconvenience and experiences both to others and directly to them. Reasonable selfishness is characterized by the presence of ethics, mutual respect, lack of aggression, as well as a predisposition to cooperate with other people.

A manifestation of reasonable selfishnessis:

• Self-development or spiritual growth. If a person is engaged in self-improvement, this means that he wants to improve his own health, spiritual state, and other people are not taken into account at all. Naturally, this is considered selfishness, but reasonable enough and quite reasonable. After all, what better man will feel, the more it will radiate positive, kindness and inspiration. In the end, everyone will benefit without exception.
• Helping the community, selfless activities. Strange as it may seem, but this is also a separate case of selfishness. Agree that if the help that a person provides to others did not bring him more positive emotions, then he would begin to do this, and even for free? Unlikely.

Scientists argue that consciousness in its purest form does not have the nature of selfishness. This means that such a phenomenon in the character of a person is acquired over time and is exclusively an attribute physical body and mind, but not pure consciousness.

improvement your body spiritual development, mental skills are all signs reasonable egoism, which is able to lead a person to self-knowledge, enlightenment and to the infinite harmony of soul and body. But this is possible only when any signs of unreasonable egoism are completely eradicated. But it will be impossible to get rid of egoism, which manifests itself from the positive human side, as long as his mind lives and functions.

As a rule, a person in the spiritual sphere is most interested in knowing himself and achieving the desired heights. Hundreds of questions that always pop up in our heads prevent us from relaxing and enjoying ourselves. healthy relationship with ourselves, the people around us and the world as a whole. All these questions, one way or another, always lead to one thing - one's own perception and personal values.

AT School of Self-knowledge and finding oneself It covers many of these issues that concern you, as well as the topics of self-esteem, attitudes towards money, human thinking, relationships and much more. In a separate free course, which is included in the school curriculum, "" is 7 effective practical exercises , thanks to which you will learn the nuances of the subconscious, the right attitude to your desires, adequate self-esteem, personal motivation, and most importantly love yourself, but at the same time, get rid of unhealthy egoism.

Ethics Apresyan Ruben Grantovich

"Reasonable Egoism"

"Reasonable Egoism"

The variability of real moral positions that we have established above, which are often united by one word "egoism", is essential for understanding egoism itself. It would be wrong to regard this analysis as a kind of intellectual trick by which universal altruistic morality, like Odysseus and his companions in the Trojan horse, sneaks into the lot of egoism in order to overcome it from within. On the contrary, in distinguishing the formulas of egoism, the possibility is revealed that egoism does not always carry evil in itself. He can be non-evil and kind to the minimum extent that is ensured by the observance of the requirement "Do no harm."

critics selfishness are of the opinion that selfishness is an immoral moral doctrine. Indeed, if the main thing for a person is to realize his personal interest, then the fulfillment of the requirements imposed from the outside is not significant for him. According to the logic, according to which personal interest is exclusive, in extreme situations an egoist can go to the violation of the most radical prohibitions - to lie, steal, denounce and kill.

But the fundamental possibility of egoism, limited by the requirement "Do no harm", indicates that the exclusivity of private interest is not an indispensable property of egoism. Supporters egoism, they notice in response to criticism that when defining egoism, it is incorrect to draw a conclusion from the question of the moral motives of behavior (personal interest or general interest) about the meaningful certainty of the actions that follow from them. After all, the personal interest of an individual may include the fulfillment of moral requirements and the promotion of the common good. Such is the logic of the so-called reasonable selfishness.

According to this ethical doctrine, although each person primarily strives to satisfy personal needs and interests, among personal needs and interests there must be those whose satisfaction not only does not contradict the interests of other people, but also contributes to the common good. Such are reasonable or rightly understood (by the individual) interests. This concept was expressed already in antiquity (its elements can be found in Aristotle and Epicurus), but it was widely developed in modern times, as a component of various social and moral teachings of the 17th-18th centuries, as well as the 19th century.

As shown by Hobbes, Mandeville, A. Smith, Helvetius, N.G. Chernyshevsky, egoism is an essential motive for economic and political activity, an important factor public life. Egoism as a social quality of a person is determined by the nature of such public relations that are based on utility. Expressing the "genuine" and "reasonable" interests of a person (hiddenly representing a common interest), it turns out to be fruitful, because it contributes to the common good. And the general interest does not exist separately from private interests; moreover, it is composed of a variety of private interests. So a person who intelligently and successfully realizes his own interest also contributes to the good of other people, the good of the whole.

This doctrine has a very definite economic basis: with the development of commodity-money relations and the forms of division of labor inherent in them, any private activity, oriented to the creation of competitive goods and services and, consequently, to the public recognition of these results, turns out to be socially useful. This can be expressed in another way: in a free market, an autonomous and sovereign individual satisfies mine private interest only as a subject of activity or the owner of goods and services that satisfy the interests others individuals; in other words, entering into a relationship of mutual use.

Schematically, this can be expressed as follows: N owns the goods t, that the individual needs M, possessing a commodity t', constituting the subject of need N. Accordingly interest N satisfied provided that he provides M the object of his needs and thereby contributes to the satisfaction of his interest. Therefore, in the interest N promotion of interest M, for it is a condition for the satisfaction of his own interest.

These are, as we saw (in Topic 22), such relations that, regulated by the principle of equality of forces or the corresponding legal provisions, objectively limit egocentrism. In a broad sense, the principle of mutual use (mutual usefulness) allows you to reconcile conflicting private interests. Thus, the egoist receives a value basis for recognizing the significance, in addition to his own, of another private interest without violating the priority of his own interest. So the subject of a private interest of a person is also the implementation of the system of rules of the community and thereby maintaining its integrity. This suggests the conclusion that within the framework of such a pragmatically, i.e., for the benefit, success and efficiency, oriented activity, limited egoism, firstly, let's say, secondly, is necessary. In the case of rejection of egoism, the relationship ceases to be a relationship of mutual utility. Economic relations cannot be built otherwise than relations of utility, in particular, mutual utility. Otherwise, economic efforts are doomed to failure.

However, in emerging within and about economic activity public relations and dependencies, the theorists of rational egoism saw the true expression of social morality. This is indeed the basis of a certain type of social discipline. However, certain - in the proper sense of the word, i.e. limited, relevant in some areas social life. Reasonably selfish teachings overlook the fact that in a free market people are fully dependent on each other only as economic agents, as producers of goods and services. However, as private individuals, as bearers of private interests, they are completely isolated from each other.

Strictly speaking, the concept of rational egoism assumes that we are talking about an individual involved in a particular community and, therefore, included in a kind of "social contract" - as a system of mutual rights and obligations. The "social contract" acts as if that highest (and general) standard which elevates the individual above the concreteness of his everyday situations. However, the real society is much more complicated. It is not holistic. It is internally contradictory. It is impossible to establish uniform principles of rationality in it (even in the limited first five meanings of this word). In a real society coexist various groups and communities, in particular competing ones, including “shadow” and criminal ones. At the same time, an autonomous personality is potentially unlimited alienated from other people both psychologically and socially and morally. All this creates immediate conditions for the “falling out” of the personality from the influence of various restraining regulatory systems and, consequently, for the “openness” of private interest to a variety of, including anti-social and immoral actions that cannot be explained through an indication of the “unreasonableness” of private interest and the need to replace it with a "reasonable" private interest.

The difficult question that arises in this connection concerns possible motives for being a reasonable, even a reasonable egoist. A typical example is ticketless travel to public transport. From a legal point of view, the passenger and the transport company (or municipal government, etc., depending on who owns the public transport) are supposed to be in a certain contractual relationship, according to which the passenger acquires the right to use the fare, assuming the obligation to pay for the fare. Quite often, passengers use the fare without paying for it. The situation when someone uses the results of other people's efforts, without offering anything in return, occurs not only in public transport. However, ticketless travel is a typical case of such a situation. Therefore, in moral and legal philosophy, this situation and the collisions that arise in connection with it are called the “free rider problem”.

This problem, first elucidated by Hobbes and conceptualized in our time by Rawls, is as follows. In conditions when collective goods are created by the efforts of many individuals, the non-participation of one individual in this process is really insignificant. And vice versa, if collective efforts were not made, even decisive actions of one would not bring any result. While "free-riding" by one or more (passengers) does not directly harm the community, it undermines cooperative relationships. From a mercantile point of view, free-riding can be perceived as an individually justified and, therefore, rational line of behavior. From a broader point of view, taking into account the advantages of cooperation, the selfish point of view can recommend cooperation as rational behavior. (Obviously, this is a reasonable egoistic point of view). As we see, on different levels evaluation of the same behavior criteria of rationality are different.

In general, it should be said that, as a rationale for morality, rational egoistic concepts are only a refined form of the apology of individualism. Not without reason, having turned out to be nothing more than a curious episode in the history of philosophical and ethical thought, they reveal an amazing vitality in ordinary consciousness - as certain type moral worldview, which matures and is affirmed within the framework of a pragmatic frame of mind in morality. The initial premise of reasonable egoism contains two theses: a) striving for my own benefit, I contribute to the benefit of other people, the benefit of society, b) since good is benefit, then, striving for my own benefit, I contribute to the development of morality. In practice, the rationally egoistic attitude is expressed in the fact that the individual chooses his own good as goals in “firm confidence” that this is exactly what meets the requirements of morality. The principle of utility commands everyone to strive for the best results and proceed from the fact that utility, efficiency, success are highest values. In the rationally egoistic version, this principle also receives an ethical content, it is, as it were, sanctioned on behalf of reason and morality. But the question of how private benefit contributes to the common good remains open as a practical question.

The same applies to the question of procedures that certify the coincidence of private and general interests and allow checking the private interest for its correspondence to the general interest. True, the general interest is always represented in one way or another through various private interests. It can be assumed that the social and cultural progress of mankind is manifested in the fact that the private interests of an increasing number of people approach or coincide with the general interest. However, the rapprochement of general and private interests is not the subject and result of a lofty choice or good intention, as the enlighteners and utilitarians believed. This is the process of formation of such a social order, unfolding in history, in which the satisfaction of the general interest is carried out through the activities of people pursuing their private interests.

Just as the exclusive reliance on “healthiness” of selfishness leads in practice to an apology for selfishness, so the striving for a strong-willed assertion of the common interest as the real interest of all members of society leads to a hidden preferential satisfaction of the interests of that social group that proclaims concern for the common interest as its goal, and ... to the equal poverty of the majority of the people who are the subject of this concern. Although in the Enlightenment reasonable egoism appears as a doctrine designed to liberate a person, already in the middle of the last century it began to be perceived as a peculiar form of curbing and regulating the individual will. F.M. Dostoevsky, as already noted, through the mouth of his unfortunate hero in Notes from the Underground, asked about the real meaning of bringing any act of a person under reasonable grounds. It is worth thinking about the requirements that are supposed to be an expression of "reasonableness", as the possibility of reducing the entire variety of personal manifestations to some bare, soulless standard becomes obvious. Dostoevsky also noticed the psychological vulnerability of relying on the rationalization of selfish aspirations: in the teaching of rational egoistic morality, the peculiarity of moral thinking as thinking is individual and preferably unaccountable; one has only to point to the "rules of reason" and they will be rejected from the mere "feeling of personality", from the spirit of contradiction, from the desire to determine for oneself what is useful and necessary. Other aspects that are unexpected for enlightenment, or romantic, rationalism in the problem of "reasonableness" are revealed by philosophers of our time, who by no means claim to be rationalism in its classical versions: what the inventive and sophisticated human mind has not thought of. Take, for example, such an indispensable element of the state as a system of punishment (not necessarily in such an extensive form as the Gulag, or in such a rationalized form as Nazi concentration camps-crematoria), - even in the most civilized modern prison, there are enough “thought-out abominable trifles”, testifying to such a variety in the applications of the human mind, which suggests restraint and criticality in exalting the products of the mind only on the grounds that they are products of the mind.

In an explicit or implicit form, the doctrine of enlightened egoism presupposed a fundamental coincidence of people's interests due to the unity of human nature. However, the idea of ​​the unity of human nature turns out to be speculative in explaining those cases where the implementation of the interests of various individuals is associated with the achievement of a certain good that cannot be shared (for example, in a situation where several people are included in a competition for a scholarship to study at a university, or two firms with the same product tend to penetrate the same regional market). Neither hopes for mutual benevolence, nor hopes for wise legislation or reasonable organization of affairs will contribute to the resolution of a conflict of interest.