While it is true that people appear generally selfish, there seems to be genuine altruism in the world. This means people must act apart from their own self-interest in some instances, even if it is not often. A homeless man a street corner, for example, may only have a few dollars in his pocket to feed himself, but he may not be that hungry. Seeing somebody worse off than himself (keep in mind, he is homeless), he may give the money to somebody who is hungry at that moment. There is literally nothing in it for this person, as they stand nothing to gain. Arguably, this puts them in a worse position than before, but shows altruism and genuine kindness for the sake of being kind.
Universal ethical egoism is the theory that each person should only pursue his or her own interests. It makes no mention of the interests of others, nor of how pursuing one’s interests without considering the impact one may have will affect others and the world. There is, of course, always a contradiction in the idea of group self-interest and individual self-interest. The individual, for example, may be interested in smoking cigarettes in public places. Recently, we have seen the group self-interest in the U.S. is to preserve health; they do not always match.
Utilitarianism is a workable moral theory, only if all participating individuals define, “well-being,” the same . For example, one individual may believe a part of their well-being is remaining on a vegan diet, and never allowing any animals to be harmed. Their mental health hinges on various things, but their diet and the safety of animals are a part of this. Many people obviously like eating meat, and their well-being would revolve around bacon with their eggs, or a hamburger for lunch. Utilitarianism would only work if the two could agree. It would likely fail.
A cost-benefit analysis may be helpful concerning certain social policies and whether they should be supported. However, when “intangibles” are concerned, I think it is more difficult to place monetary value on a policy. Intangibles in such a scenario could be, for example, human emotion that would result from a specific policy. While a cost-benefit analysis would weigh the cost and benefits of tangible issues, such as what is being removed, versus what is being gained, there is no way to place a price on potential human suffering or happiness.
References
Fromm, E. (2013). Man for Himself: An Inquiry Into the Psychology of Ethics. London: Routledge.
Mill, J. S. (2010). Utilitarianism. Boston: Broadview Press.
Ransome, W., & Sampford, C. (2013). Ethics and Socially Responsible Investment: A Philosophical Approach. Chicago: Ashgate Publishing.
