The idea of prioritizing the happiness of others over your own is a widely admired value. Seeking to live your life the way you want is “selfish” and “immoral”, according to this philosophy. Simply giving is not sufficient; you must be willing to sacrifice even what you do not have an abundance of. According to altruism, there are only two means to achieve any end in life: (1) sacrifice yourself for others or (2) compel them to sacrifice for you. In every act, you must consider the collective over yourself; that is morality.

However, if we delve deeper into the implications of this premise—that “the key to happiness is sacrificing your own happiness for the happiness of others”—a paradox emerges when we consider its universal application. If everyone followed this principle, it would result in a scenario where no one would be happy. This contradiction exposes a fundamental flaw in the altruistic doctrine, as it inadvertently advocates to help precisely the people it deems immoral within its own philosophical framework since, ultimately, only those who are selfish can benefit from the acts of selfless people.

A world where everyone prioritizes solving others’ problems rather than their own is impractical and counterproductive. The pervasive idea that sacrifice is virtuous leads to moralistic endeavors that cause more problems than they solve.

Being selfish does not mean being insensitive, nor does being altruistic imply kindness or generosity. Altruism involves putting others’ needs above your own, creating a zero-sum situation, while selfishness—focused on one’s welfare, prosperity, and happiness—leads to win-win scenarios. Acting in one’s own self-interest allows for mutual benefit, distinct from heartlessness.

However, the term “selfishness” has become laden with moralistic connotations, often leading to resistance from people and hindering open, error-correcting discussions. Some people, moralizing their stance, view any opposition to their ideas as a complete disregard for all lives, even if the counterargument could lead to a better outcome for more people. They neglect to understand that moralizing in itself is not an argument.

For instance, if one disagrees with a minimum wage law, moralizers in favor of state intervention will equate that to “greed” and “selfishness” and consequently call out that person as “immoral”. That claim lacks any explanation. It is entirely vacuous, yet it is very appealing to many people. Moralizing makes it harder for ideas to be corrected and is always a mistake.

People pursuing their interests achieve progress more rapidly than those suppressing their inclinations for perceived moral obligations. Choosing a career solely for its promised positive impact, against one’s genuine interests, often leads to personal struggle and, ironically, increased suffering. The key to faster progress—beneficial for everyone—is tackling problems that interest you, not acting out of “obligation”. Diverting resources from their optimal use to less effective areas under the guise of moral duty ultimately harms more people than it ever helps.

Follow me on X: @arjunkhemani

Click here to support my work.

P.S. Logan Chipkin sparked many of the ideas in this post during our conversations together. Check out his Substack.