The Egoistic Friend

By Sam Vaknin
Author of "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited"

What are friends for and how can a friendship be tested? By behaving
altruistically, would be the most common answer and by sacrificing
one's interests in favour of one's friends. Friendship implies the
converse of egoism, both psychologically and ethically. But then we
say that the dog is "man's best friend". After all, it is
characterized by unconditional love, by unselfish behaviour, by
sacrifice, when necessary. Isn't this the epitome of friendship?
Apparently not. On the one hand, the dog's friendship seems to be
unaffected by long term calculations of personal benefit. But that
is not to say that it is not affected by calculations of a short-
term nature. The owner, after all, looks after the dog and is the
source of its subsistence and security. People - and dogs - have
been known to have sacrificed their lives for less. The dog is
selfish - it clings and protects what it regards to be its territory
and its property (including - and especially so - the owner). Thus,
the first condition, seemingly not satisfied by canine attachment is
that it be reasonably unselfish.

There are, however, more important conditions:

1.. For a real friendship to exist - at least one of the friends
must be a conscious and intelligent entity, possessed of mental
states. It can be an individual, or a collective of individuals, but
in both cases this requirement will similarly apply.
2.. There must be a minimal level of identical mental states
between the terms of the equation of friendship. A human being
cannot be friends with a tree (at least not in the fullest sense of
the word).
3.. The behaviour must not be deterministic, lest it be
interpreted as instinct driven. A conscious choice must be involved.
This is a very surprising conclusion: the more "reliable", the
more "predictable" - the less appreciated. Someone who reacts
identically to similar situations, without dedicating a first, let
alone a second thought to it - his acts would be depreciated
as "automatic responses".
For a pattern of behaviour to be described as "friendship", these
four conditions must be met: diminished egoism, conscious and
intelligent agents, identical mental states (allowing for the
communication of the friendship) and non-deterministic behaviour,
the result of constant decision making.

A friendship can be - and often is - tested in view of these
criteria. There is a paradox underlying the very notion of testing a
friendship. A real friend would never test his friend's commitment
and allegiance. Anyone who puts his friend to a test (deliberately)
would hardly qualify as a friend himself. But circumstances can put
ALL the members of a friendship, all the individuals (two or more)
in the "collective" to a test of friendship. Financial hardship
encountered by someone would surely oblige his friends to assist
him - even if he himself did not take the initiative and explicitly
asked them to do so. It is life that tests the resilience and
strength and depth of true friendships - not the friends themselves.

In all the discussions of egoism versus altruism - confusion between
self-interest and self-welfare prevails. A person may be urged on to
act by his self-interest, which might be detrimental to his (long-
term) self-welfare. Some behaviours and actions can satisfy short-
term desires, urges, wishes (in short: self-interest) - and yet be
self- destructive or otherwise adversely effect the individual's
future welfare. (Psychological) Egoism should, therefore, be re-
defined as the active pursuit of self- welfare, not of self-
interest. Only when the person caters, in a balanced manner, to both
his present (self-interest) and his future (self-welfare) interests -
can we call him an egoist. Otherwise, if he caters only to his
immediate self-interest, seeks to fulfil his desires and disregards
the future costs of his behaviour - he is an animal, not an egoist.

Joseph Butler separated the main (motivating) desire from the desire
that is self- interest. The latter cannot exist without the former.
A person is hungry and this is his desire. His self-interest is,
therefore, to eat. But the hunger is directed at eating - not at
fulfilling self-interests. Thus, hunger generates self-interest (to
eat) but its object is eating. Self-interest is a second order
desire that aims to satisfy first order desires (which can also
motivate us directly).

This subtle distinction can be applied to disinterested behaviours,
acts, which seem to lack a clear self-interest or even a first order
desire. Consider why do people contribute to humanitarian causes?
There is no self-interest here, even if we account for the global
picture (with every possible future event in the life of the
contributor). No rich American is likely to find himself starving in
Somalia, the target of one such humanitarian aid mission.

But even here the Butler model can be validated. The first order
desire of the donator is to avoid anxiety feelings generated by a
cognitive dissonance. In the process of socialization we are all
exposed to altruistic messages. They are internalized by us (some
even to the extent of forming part of the almighty superego, the
conscience). In parallel, we assimilate the punishment inflicted
upon members of society who are not "social" enough, unwilling to
contribute beyond that which is required to satisfy their self
interest, selfish or egoistic, non-conformist, "too"
individualistic, "too" idiosyncratic or eccentric, etc. Completely
not being altruistic is "bad" and as such calls for "punishment".
This no longer is an outside judgement, on a case by case basis,
with the penalty inflicted by an external moral authority. This
comes from the inside: the opprobrium and reproach, the guilt, the
punishment (read Kafka). Such impending punishment generates anxiety
whenever the person judges himself not to have been
altruistically "sufficient". It is to avoid this anxiety or to quell
it that a person engages in altruistic acts, the result of his
social conditioning. To use the Butler scheme: the first-degree
desire is to avoid the agonies of cognitive dissonance and the
resulting anxiety. This can be achieved by committing acts of
altruism. The second-degree desire is the self-interest to commit
altruistic acts in order to satisfy the first-degree desire. No one
engages in contributing to the poor because he wants them to be less
poor or in famine relief because he does not want others to starve.
People do these apparently selfless activities because they do not
want to experience that tormenting inner voice and to suffer the
acute anxiety, which accompanies it. Altruism is the name that we
give to successful indoctrination. The stronger the process of
socialization, the stricter the education, the more severely brought
up the individual, the grimmer and more constraining his superego -
the more of an altruist he is likely to be. Independent people who
really feel comfortable with their selves are less likely to exhibit
these behaviours.

This is the self-interest of society: altruism enhances the overall
level of welfare. It redistributes resources more equitably, it
tackles market failures more or less efficiently (progressive tax
systems are altruistic), it reduces social pressures and stabilizes
both individuals and society. Clearly, the self-interest of society
is to make its members limit the pursuit of their own self-interest?
There are many opinions and theories. They can be grouped into:

1.. Those who see an inverse relation between the two: the more
satisfied the self interests of the individuals comprising a
society - the worse off that society will end up. What is meant
by "better off" is a different issue but at least the commonsense,
intuitive, meaning is clear and begs no explanation. Many religions
and strands of moral absolutism espouse this view.
2.. Those who believe that the more satisfied the self-interests
of the individuals comprising a society - the better off this
society will end up. These are the "hidden hand" theories.
Individuals, which strive merely to maximize their utility, their
happiness, their returns (profits) - find themselves inadvertently
engaged in a colossal endeavour to better their society. This is
mostly achieved through the dual mechanisms of market and price.
Adam Smith is an example (and other schools of the dismal science).
3.. Those who believe that a delicate balance must exist between
the two types of self-interest: the private and the public. While
most individuals will be unable to obtain the full satisfaction of
their self-interest - it is still conceivable that they will attain
most of it. On the other hand, society must not fully tread on
individuals' rights to self-fulfilment, wealth accumulation and the
pursuit of happiness. So, it must accept less than maximum
satisfaction of its self-interest. The optimal mix exists and is,
probably, of the minimax type. This is not a zero sum game and
society and the individuals comprising it can maximize their worst
outcomes.
The French have a saying: "Good bookkeeping - makes for a good
friendship". Self-interest, altruism and the interest of society at
large are not necessarily incompatible.


Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant
Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West
Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician,
Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a
United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and
the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in
The Open Directory and Suite101.

Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government
of Macedonia.

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com