Home Magic French philosopher supporter of the theory of rational egoism. The theory of "reasonable egoism" in the novel by G. N. Chernyshevsky "What is to be done?" - Essay on any topic. First, let's define the theory of "reasonable egoism"

Magic

French philosopher supporter of the theory of rational egoism. The theory of "reasonable egoism" in the novel by G. N. Chernyshevsky "What is to be done?" - Essay on any topic. First, let's define the theory of "reasonable egoism"

Chapter 31

Whom to love? Whom to believe? Who will not change us one?
Who measures all deeds, all speeches Helpfully by our arshin?
Who does not sow slander about us? Who cares for us?
Who does not care about our vice? Who never gets bored?
The ghost of a vain seeker, Works in vain without ruining,
Love thyself, my venerable reader!
(c) A.S. Pushkin

What is selfishness?

Let's take the first dictionary of definitions that comes across, for example, Wikipedia, and see what does selfishness mean:

selfishness(from the Latin "ego" - "I") - behavior entirely determined by the thought of one's own benefit, benefit, when an individual puts his own interests above the interests of others.

People don't like selfishness. The shameful diagnosis "Egoist!" issued to anyone who allows himself to have desires, knows how to say "no" or puts his own interests above those of others.

The question arises: why is it customary to believe that selfishness is bad?
Why does the public say that selfishness is the worst thing in a person. Why are we taught to feel guilty about manifestations of selfishness to be ashamed of our own nature and play the part of who we are not?

There is an opinion that selfishness destroys society and relationships between people. But is it really so?

The goal of innate natural selfishness is survival. And if public order will be an objectively more effective way of survival, our egoism will only be happy with such a society and will always support it.
Animals live in packs. And they don't have any morality. Nobody teaches them that they should be kind to their neighbor. Their selfish instinct for self-preservation tells them: the pack - The best way to survive, and therefore it is necessary to support the interests of the pack, as if it were your own. But human egoism is not more stupid than animal ...

It turns out that society simply influences us with the help of this “cliche”, and teaches us to be a simple cog in its mechanism, without our own views and concepts. It is more beneficial for society for a person to sit in his "mink" and dutifully do what "public opinion" commands.

We are all selfish, "from" and "to". But under the pressure of public morality, we really want to see ourselves as some other. And this self-deception never goes unnoticed, because selfish behavior driven by primal instincts. And attempts to eradicate one's own egoism sometimes lead to sad consequences.

Take a look around - most of your acquaintances are probably suffering from a deep internal conflict based on unsatisfied egoism. People around are not satisfied with their lives due to the fact that they do not take into account the desires of their soul. From early childhood, they were instilled with the idea of the sinfulness of selfish desires, and all their lives they are only engaged in the fact that they are at war with themselves, with their nature.

Because a person has no other desires, except for selfish ones. In every act of a person behind the screen of his kindness, nobility and selflessness, it is easy to detect selfish motivation. And this motivation is not secondary - you can’t hide behind this excuse - selfish motivation is always primary! And there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing to be ashamed of - such is herself human nature, and to fight it means to rebel against the instinct of self-preservation.

Reasonable selfishness

Reasonable selfishness- a philosophical and ethical position in which the priority of personal interest is higher than any other interest, be it public or any other.

The need for a separate term appeared, apparently, in connection with 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 about himself and / or neglects the interests of other people, then supporters of “ reasonable selfishness It is commonly argued that such neglect, for a variety of reasons, is simply disadvantageous for the neglecter. 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. In other words, egocentrism:

Egocentrism- the inability or inability of the individual to stand on someone else's point of view. Perception of one's point of view as the only one that exists. And consequently - unwillingness and inability to take into account the interests of others.

Reasonable egoism in the everyday sense is the ability to live in one's own interests, without contradicting the interests of others.

Reasonable egoism is nothing but the call of our soul. The problem is that a "normal" adult no longer hears the voice of a natural healthy selfishness. What, under the guise of egoism, reaches his consciousness is a pathological narcissism, which has become the result of a long suppression of the impulses of rational egoism.

A reasonable egoist is much closer to holiness than any convinced righteous person, because he deceives himself less. How stronger man believes in the disinterestedness of his thoughts and actions, the more unhappy he is. He can perform the greatest feats of mercy, but at the same time his own life will remain empty and tasteless. Such self-deception kills, because the desires of a person remain unfulfilled.

There is another case when it seems that a person spits on everyone and lives only for himself. But it's still the same problem, only turned inside out. Obedience to morality or rebellion against it is one and the same thing.

That difference between people, which is easy to notice when it comes to selfishness, is due not to the level of selfishness, but to the level of their self-deception in this regard. The most unhealthy selfishness is among the righteous and rebels. Both those and others are equally at war with their own nature, proving to others their kindness or malice. They try to resolve the internal conflict outside, but they never succeed. And from the outside, they look the most flawed - painfully narcissistic or just as painfully meek.

Reasonable egoists, on the other hand, look at the world more soberly and from the outside look not so egoists. Pay attention to this trick - the more honest a person is about his own motivation, the less selfish his actions look. Or, at least, his selfishness looks justified, reasonable, sober, and therefore does not cause rejection.

Let's take an example: Two people: reasonable and unconscious egoists. Both are doing the same thing close person present. A reasonable egoist is aware that he is making a gift for himself. Because he himself likes to give gifts and likes to receive something in return. His game "in gifts" is obvious and transparent - he does not hide his self-interest either from himself or from another person, which means that there is no stone left in his bosom. A reasonable egoist is mercenary, but honest.

But an unreasonable, unconscious egoist acts differently - he does not realize that he is driven only by personal interest. He believes that he does not have any ulterior motives. But for more deep level he is driven by the same personal selfish interest - he also wants to get something in return, but he wants to get it secretly, irresponsibly.
If he gets it, then all is well. But if for some reason the reaction to the gift does not suit him, all his self-interest immediately comes out - he begins to take offense, freak out, demand justice or accuse the other of selfishness. So he forces the other person to pay the bills for all the "selfless gifts" received.

An unconscious egoist is just as mercenary as a reasonable one, but at the same time pretends that there is no personal benefit in his act, and is very proud of his ostentatious self-denial. Although in reality there is nothing but hypocrisy in his “disinterestedness”:

Hypocrisy- a negative moral quality, consisting in the fact that actions deliberately committed for the sake of selfish interests are attributed pseudo-moral meaning and lofty motives. Hypocrisy is the opposite of honesty, sincerity - qualities in which a person's awareness and open expression of the true meaning of his actions is manifested.

Reasonable egoism is one of the qualities of a successful person

Reasonable egoist:

Honest, first of all to himself, and holistic in his attitude.
Less prone to MANIPULATION, as he critically evaluates the motivation of other people.
Will not fall into, because adequately evaluates its "investment".
It has its own goals, which means personality. What goals can you talk about if you are not an egoist, and your interests are not in the first place for you? (a rhetorical question).
Inclined to cooperate, tk. understands that in cooperation it is more profitable to achieve their own goals. This means that it takes into account the interests of other people, including in relationships.
He will not allow himself, because. it contradicts his self-identification.
For men, selfishness is an indispensable condition for being in a relationship.

And the main advantage of a person with healthy egoism is the ability to solve their own problems, taking into account the interests of others, and competently build a system.

Your selfishness is perfectly healthy and reasonable if you:

Stand up for your right to refuse something if you think it will harm you;
understand that your goals will be implemented in the first place, but others are entitled to their interest;
you know how to do things in your favor, trying not to harm others, and are able to compromise;
have your own opinion and are not afraid to speak out, even when it differs from someone else's;
do not obey anyone, but do not seek to control others;
respect the wishes of the partner, but do not step over yourself;
do not suffer from guilt, having made a choice in your favor;
love and respect yourself without demanding blind adoration from others.

Summary:

There is nothing in a person except his own selfish “I want!”. And the more clearly he sees this, the simpler and more natural his life, the simpler and more natural his relationship with people. Selfishness is a completely healthy feeling, if you stop being ashamed of it. The more you hide from him, the more he breaks out in the form of unreasonable insults and attempts to manipulate people for his own good. And the more you recognize it, the more clearly you understand that this very egoism makes us honor the freedom and interests of another person. Conscious reasonable egoism is the only way to healthy and constructive relationships between people.

Egoism can be conditionally divided into reasonable and unreasonable. But you should know that both types of egoism are manifested in rejection of what is(cm.). All desires and aspirations arise from the ego, and nowhere else.

Let us consider in more detail the types of egoism.

Unreasonable egoism manifests itself in obsession with oneself: "I want ...", "me ...", "mine ...". Satisfaction of your desires comes first, all other people and their interests are relegated to the background or completely ignored. Unreasonable egoism is characterized by the fact that in the end Always brings suffering(any kind) to yourself and others. When a person manifests unreasonable egoism, he attracts other people who also show (or turn on as a reaction) this type of egoism. And what happens to these people, each of whom puts himself in the first place?

Unreasonable egoism is directed mainly at the material - the desire to have more and / or better than the other, which ultimately leads to troubles.

Unreasonable egoism keeps the mind in constant tension, because you constantly have to do calculations, tricks, tricks; this tension accumulates (stress), which leads to mental breakdowns, depression and illness.The consequences of unreasonable egoism are described in the article .

Reasonable egoism is characterized a greater understanding of life, and this is a more subtle kind of 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.

Spiritual growth (self-development) is a manifestation of reasonable egoism. When a person takes care of himself, he does it for himself, he wants to improve his condition, and other people here may not be taken into account at all. Yes, this is selfishness, but reasonable, because the better one's own state, the more a person radiates positive (of any kind), and in the end it's better for everyone with whom he deals. But here, reasonable egoism can border or be combined with unreasonable, when a person ceases to fulfill his duties (in the family, society, at work), making excuses that which takes care of itself. This is a dangerous situation that can negate all achievements on the spiritual plane and lead to big problems in the material world. "I'm better (higher, smarter, wiser, cleaner...) than you because I'm taking care of myself, so get away from me, I won't do anything for you" - such an attitude will inevitably lead to problems, because it is unreasonable.

Let's continue about the reasonable. Reasonable selfishness can manifest itself different ways. For example, you use against a person to get favor from him. Or use it to get more happiness and success. Or, to get rid of negativity and limiting beliefs, to get more freedom and peace. And so on. Selfish? Yes, you do it for yourself, but in the end everyone benefits from it. If the unreasonable does not connect to rational egoism, bad consequences will not be.

Selfless useful activity is also a manifestation of reasonable egoism., anyway. After all, if selflessness did not bring more joy and happiness to the one who does it, no one would do it, right?

They say, everything that a person does, he does for himself and every person is an egoist. This is true. We live in an egoistic world, in a body-mind that is originally egoistic in nature. The body needs food, clothes, a roof over its head, the mind also needs its own food (the mind is constantly looking for something, digesting it). Any organism (body-mind) is selfishly programmed.

Consciousness in pure form does not have the nature of selfishness. In other words, egoism is something acquired, existing only in the manifested world, it is an attribute of the body and mind, and not of pure consciousness.

Adequate care for the body, work on the mind (spiritual growth), getting rid of unreasonable egoism are manifestations of reasonable egoism, which benefits everyone.

When unreasonable egoism disappears, leaving only rational egoism, then this rational egoism examines itself, which eventually leads to the knowledge of oneself, as pure consciousness, occurs.

A traffic cop accidentally waved his stick, and a car stopped. Decided to go and apologize. Just came up, the driver:
- I forgot my rights!
Wife nearby:
- He's lying! Drinking yesterday!
Mother-in-law behind:
- They always get caught in a stolen car!
Voice from trunk:
- Has the border been crossed yet?

When distributing the materials of the site, please put a link to the source.

In our society, the remnants of Soviet morality are still heard, in which there was no place for any egoism - neither reasonable nor all-consuming. At the same time, developed countries, in particular the United States, have built their entire economy and society on the principles of selfishness. If we turn to religion, egoism is not welcome in it, and behavioral psychology claims that any action performed by a person has selfish motives, since it is based on the survival instinct. People around often scold a person who does what is best for him, calling him an egoist, but this is not a curse, and the world is not divided into black and white, just as there are no absolute egoists and altruists.

Reasonable egoism: the concept

First of all, let's define what distinguishes reasonable egoism from unreasonable. The latter manifests itself in ignoring the needs and comfort of other people, focusing all the actions and aspirations of a person on satisfying his, often, momentary needs. Reasonable egoism also comes from the emotional and physiological needs of a person (“I want to leave work right now and go to bed”), but is balanced by reason, which distinguishes Homo sapiens from creatures that act purely instinctively (“I will finish the project, and tomorrow I will take the day off”) . As you can see, the need for rest will be satisfied, without prejudice to work.

The world is built on selfishness

There are hardly a dozen real altruists in the history of man. No, we do not in any way diminish the merits and merits of the numerous benefactors and heroes of our kind, but, to be completely honest, altruistic actions also come from the desire to satisfy one's ego. For example, a volunteer enjoys work, increases his self-esteem (“I am doing a good deed”). By helping a relative with money, you relieve your own anxiety for him, which is also partly a selfish motive. This does not need to be denied or tried to change, because this is not bad. Healthy egoism is inherent in every reasonable and developed person, he is the engine of progress. If you do not become a hostage to your desires and do not ignore the needs of others, this selfishness can be considered reasonable.

Lack of selfishness and self-improvement

People who give up their desires and live for the sake of others (children, spouses, friends) are the other extreme, in which their own needs are relegated to the background, and this is unhealthy. You definitely won’t achieve happiness in this way, for this you need to understand where the golden mean is in the subtle issue of selfishness.
In the process of self-improvement, a person inevitably shows reasonable egoism, which is combined with concern for others. For example, you are trying to become a better person, increase your self-esteem and get away from the control of your parents or partner. At first, others may be offended by your newfound independence in decision-making, but eventually they will understand that you are becoming the best person and improving the quality of your life will definitely have a positive impact on loved ones and loved ones.

Here is a rough list of what I think should be done solely for yourself, resolutely and ruthlessly discarding any other incentives:

- Choose a job, your main activity – create (if creativity is your activity, you should still like it first of all).

- Change your appearance, image, first name and surname and other attributes of earthly life. Doing this for someone else besides yourself is most of the time stupid and leads to frustration (as well as minimizing the importance of your own opinion). The exception is if you treat your appearance very easily and with experimental enthusiasm, then why not? - Engage in self-improvement. Strictly speaking, in general, you need to change something in yourself only with motivation “for yourself”, otherwise you can get carried away and reshape your subtle soul in someone’s image and likeness or desire. A line can be drawn here: if I have relationship problems with a person, it is in my best interest to adjust my perception and behavior (remembering that the responsibility is shared between two and not trying to become better for both). It’s another matter when a partner demands (hints, puts an ultimatum, presses, bargains) that you change this and that in yourself, and no matter how much you comprehend, you come to the conclusion that you just don’t want to change it, but you still do it to keep the person.

If you decide to become more educated, more sociable, more attractive, more interesting, richer - that's great. If at the same time you are driven by the desire to “please Mikhail”, “prove to colleagues that I am not a fool”, “amaze everyone at the reunion of graduates”, “poke your mother with her nose into a pile of money so that she understands that I am not a loser” - this is what what I call rotten motivation. It not only smells, but at any moment it can collapse like a rotten floor of the second floor - for example, as soon as you realize that Mikhail, colleagues and classmates do not care about your achievements, and your mother will still find a reason to consider you a loser if she wants to .

- Rest. Even if the rest is couples or family, it is necessary that you enjoy it - to act to the detriment of your desires and interests means to take away your own strength, mental health and future productivity.

Nobody needs your sacrifices

Surprisingly, people value only those sacrifices that they made themselves, and not those that were made by others for their sake. Do not confuse “appreciate” and “feel guilty” - if, for example, a spouse stays with his wife only out of guilt (“she did so much for me, went out, sculpted, now I will repay her debt”), this is not happy, productive relationship. Sacrifice is generally a terrible thing that has the form of a deal: one puts his desires, dreams and half his life, or even his entire life, on a fictional sacrificial altar, and the second is obliged to be grateful for the rest of his life and remember this “debt”.

“Give yourself all”, “live for the sake of children”, “dedicate yourself to humanity” are false desires. Why? Because they are dictated either by the fear of losing love, respect and the very presence of this person (people) in your life, or by the desire to get away from your life and your own pressing problems in science, social activities, etc. True desires can be unselfish - for example, I want this person to be happy, whether he is with me or not. And if I want him to be happy, but always next to me, and for this I try to bind him with my sacrifices and bestowals - this is unhealthy egoism and a destructive model of relationships.

Everything that you did not do for yourself while you were busy doing for others will not return, will not be rewarded to you and will not be offered in the form of a reciprocal sacrifice, this must be clearly understood. A life lived for others is always kind of lost for you - and what's the point?

Is it possible to live both for yourself and for others?

My opinion about the need to do something only for yourself concerns global, significant issues and events in a person’s life. At the same time, I understand and recognize the importance of both the ability to compromise, learn to understand other people, and provide assistance to close and random people when you can provide it and really need it. (With)

Society imposes its standards and norms of behavior on a person, following which people often become unhappy. We are taught from childhood to put the interests of other people above our own, and those who do not follow this rule are called selfish and harsh. Today, psychologists and philosophers have begun to discuss the topic of healthy egoism, which, in their opinion, should be present in every person. Examples from the life of reasonable selfishness for understanding children will be further discussed on this page "Popular about health".

What is reasonable selfishness?

First, let's define what this term means. For people who grew up in a society where any selfishness is condemned, it will be difficult to feel this fine line between two concepts - self-centeredness and altruism. To understand the definition, you should first remember who the egoists and altruists are.

Egoists are people who always put their own interests above the interests of other people. They are looking for their own benefit and self-interest in all matters, to achieve the goal they use any methods, go over their heads. Even the fact that their actions will harm other people will not stop them. They are too self-confident, their self-esteem is greatly inflated.

Altruists are the exact opposite of selfish people. Their self-esteem is so low that they are ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of others. Such people easily respond to the requests of others, they are ready to put aside their affairs, including important ones, in order to help another person.

Now, when both concepts are considered, it is easier to realize what reasonable egoism is. In simple words, this is the "golden mean" between the two extremes - egocentrism and altruism. Healthy or reasonable egoism is not negative, but positive quality, it should not be condemned in society. Thanks to healthy egoism, a person becomes happier.

Why healthy selfishness is good?

Reasonable selfishness is useful for a person for the following reasons:

It helps to gain adequate self-esteem;
- Thanks to this quality, a person is able to achieve many of his goals, while not harming others;
- A reasonable egoist does not miss the opportunities that open before him and is able to enjoy life to the fullest;
- Thanks to this quality, a person knows how to refuse people if he sees fit, he is not burdened by a sense of guilt, duty and obligation to others.

Does the above mean that a reasonable egoist is not able to help the people around him? No, it doesn't. Such people are able to come to the rescue, but at the same time they will not sacrifice their health, life, family interests for the sake of others.

Guided by sound egoism, these people will first weigh the pros and cons, and then make an informed decision. We can say that they assess the situation, looking far ahead. If a reasonable egoist considers that having yielded to someone today, he will gain good in the future, he will definitely do so.

Examples of reasonable selfishness from life for children

As children grow, they need to be taught a balanced view of things. You can not call them selfish if they defend their interests, while not harming others. Of course, to explain to children what reasonable egoism is, you need to use examples, preferably your own, because kids do not listen to us, they look at us.

A typical example of healthy selfishness will be shown by a mother who does not give the last thing to the child, but shares everything with him in half. In society, there will immediately be those who will say - a bad mother, children are given the best. But she looks to the future, because when the son or daughter grows up, they will understand that their mother loved them and herself. If the mother always gives everything to the children, they will just grow up to be real egoists, because for them it is the norm that the mother will give the last thing so that they feel good, while sacrificing their desires and needs.

Let's consider one more example of manifestation of healthy egoism, it will be clear to children. Let's say Vasya has collected a collection of stickers on the theme of a famous cartoon, it is very dear to him. And Petya has not yet had time to collect a complete collection, he lacks 2 stickers. He asked Vasya for one missing item for his collection. A child with healthy egoism will be able to refuse Petya, because he spent a lot of time and effort searching for the right pictures. The altruist will most likely give his friend all the missing pictures. And an example of unhealthy egocentrism in this situation will be Petya, if he steals the stickers he needs from Vasya, having received a refusal, or achieves their receipt by other methods - pressure, blackmail, force.

In the described situation, there may be a different outcome - a reasonable egoist Vasya can make a different decision, give the missing pictures to a friend, if the relationship with a friend is much more important for him. A person who has a balanced view of his own "I" freely makes decisions, while he can refuse to help or help, but he does not harm anyone.

Another example - on an airplane, if it crashes, the mother must put on the oxygen mask first on herself, and then on the child. This does not mean that she wants to save herself at all costs. She saves herself to be able to help the baby.

As we found out, being selfish is bad, altruistic too, but having a balanced view of self-esteem and self-sacrifice is right. It is easier for such people to achieve goals and achieve success without destroying relationships with others, without harming them.

The principle of reasonable selfishness is the golden mean between altruism and selfishness

Even if you are by nature the broadest soul of a person, postpone your desire for self-sacrifice until better times (it is possible that these times will never come!). If you can't be selfish, at least act like a selfish person. What is selfishness? It is "a romance that lasts a lifetime", with the person who is most dear to you, that is, with yourself.

Self-love is the ideological content of the principle of reasonable egoism, and its applied expression is to shift as many various duties as possible onto the shoulders of a man, including those that used to be yours.

Using the principle of reasonable selfishness from the very first days of your acquaintance with a man, you will instill in him a sense of responsibility, which will be very useful if you decide to make him happy by agreeing to marry him. By not letting a man relax, you can free up more time for yourself, your existing or planned children, and, finally, your life partner! As a result, even with a long history of living together, you will not be a “driven horse”, always irritated, tormented by petty everyday problems, you will smile more often and grumble less. And in the end, both of you will benefit from it. That is why this principle is called "reasonable egoism."

Give a man the opportunity to take care of you. Be a bit of an actress, feign helplessness and confusion in any difficult (and not very difficult either!) situation. Women who look weak and helpless make a man feel strong. And always win in the eyes of men.

No matter what men say, each of them dreams in his soul of a romantic person, reminiscent of Turgenev's girls, even if at a given time he is sleeping with a girl "without complexes." Do not believe that men like practical women, realists, standing firmly on their feet! The symbiosis of a food processor, a washing machine and a vacuum cleaner is needed only by a male consumer. But you don't need such a man!

By the way, the role of an impractical person, far from everyday life and the real world, is not only much more advantageous, but also brings very tangible benefits.

In relationships with the opposite sex, always be guided by the principle of reasonable selfishness.

Love yourself more than the man you love. The more you experience warm feelings for yourself, your beloved, the more likely your partner will love you with the same degree of intensity.

Do only what your soul lies in, what interests you and causes positive emotions.

Never do anything you don't actively want to do. If you do not want to go to the country to dig beds - do not go. By wasting a weekend to sow parsley and dill, you will decorate your table later, but not your life.

Don't visit people you don't like. Of course, you don’t say this to your gentleman, accept the invitation, but calmly go about your business.

If you have accumulated a full basket of dirty laundry, and you want to read a detective story or watch your favorite series - do not deny yourself anything. If your roommate grumbles that he does not have clean shirts, let him wash himself. Having decided on a life together, you did not sign obligations for the personal care of his person. He certainly does not perform even half of what is considered "man's duties"!

You can shirk unpleasant things in this way: never argue with a man, do not say that you are lazy or don’t feel like it, verbally agree that everything will be done, but do nothing at the same time. And then - a sweet, confused smile and: “I'm sorry, dear, I completely forgot! Oh, I'm sorry, please don't be angry!" Well, how can he not forgive! Maybe he'll curse to himself, but he won't show it. Even if he mentally calls you "bludgeon", "stupid". But you will make him play by his own rules.

Or another option: “play the fool”, blink your eyes, ask again a hundred times, pretend that you will certainly forget and confuse everything. As a result, your man will be forced to help you. A couple of such sessions, and he will get used to doing everything himself. It's okay, the crown will not fall off him!

Never forget that you have not only responsibilities, but also rights. Reclaim more rights for yourself and slowly get rid of responsibilities.

Always look for a performer who can do for you the maximum of what was previously part of your responsibilities.

The technical side of things, as well as the physical, dirty work, is not for you. If your favorite picture has fallen off the wall, do not rush to take up the hammer to hang it again. Any woman is able to drive a nail into the wall, but why should she do it ?! If there is a male being in your house, this is his prerogative. Let the fallen picture stand there, leaning against the wall, until the creature, proudly calling itself a "man", deigns to get a stepladder, a hammer and a nail. If the faucet is dripping, don't rush to call the control room to call a locksmith. If your life partner's hands are growing out of the wrong place to replace the gasket, then let him at least take care to personally call a locksmith. At the same time, and learn how to fix the problem. (By the way, there are no tricks in this, such an operation may well be mastered by a man even with three higher educations.)

Men have nothing to complain about. Any work is only for their benefit.. Labor, as you know, turned a monkey into a man. Work and a male representative can turn into a man.

Take good care of your own good mood. Never raise your voice, shout, argue or fight with a man. Don't waste your emotions! Remember that negative emotions negatively affect a woman's appearance.

If you have to do something that disgusts you, do not rush. Pull until you find someone who will (or not) roll up their sleeves with pleasure. The winner is the one who has stronger nerves or who cares about the result. If enthusiasm is not shown by anyone, forget about this matter. There are so many things in the world that you don’t have to do at all!

Learn to say "no". The problem with many women is that they are too easy to say "yes" and do not know how to say "no". When refusing someone, justify the reason. If your opponent's motivation does not suit him, it's worse for him.

Do not puzzle over other people's problems that do not concern you. Do not climb into someone else's soul, into someone else's life, but do not let anyone into yours.

Learn to manipulate men and make them do what you want.

Never row while sitting in a boat with a man (of course, this should not be taken only literally). Figuratively speaking, be a navigator in life, but not a rower.

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING: DO NOT SPILL MEN BY TAKING THEIR FUNCTIONS ON YOURSELF!

Having mastered these principles, you will understand that you can enjoy life without disappointing others, without infringing on their interests, but at the same time without offending yourself.

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. The key word is benefit. For the economy and business, this is normal.

But as for the sphere of human relations, 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 a more subtle kind of egoism. 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. Ideas about the "lonely Robinson", who had unlimited freedom in his natural state and who replaced this natural freedom with public rights and duties, were brought to life by a new way of activity and management and corresponded to the position of the individual in an industrial society, where everyone owned some kind of property (even if only for his 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; therefore, we are not talking 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 everyday 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, it is necessary to develop physical inclinations, then feelings, then mental capacity 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 had a huge impact on many thinkers who adhere to it (on L.N. Tolstoy, J.V. Goethe, I. Pestalozzi, R. Rolland).

When I, say, cry for a dead friend, in reality I am crying not for him, but for myself, because without him I will have no one to talk to about myself, to get help. Of course, one cannot agree with all the utilitarian conclusions of Helvetius, one cannot reduce all the feelings of a person, all types of his activity to benefit or to the desire to receive benefits. 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 the book “On the Mind” in 1758 (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 give up oneself and sacrifice oneself supposedly for the sake of 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 exactly 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.

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 clutches 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. Important influence It also has a strengthening of democratic tendencies.

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.

ethical concept put forward by the enlighteners of the 17th-18th centuries. It is based on the principle that a properly understood personal interest must coincide with the public one. In the ethics of Helvetius, Holbach, Diderot, and later Feuerbach, R. e. t. expressed the interests of the rising bourgeoisie in its struggle against the ascetic feudal-Christian morality, served as the ideological preparation for bourgeois revolutions. These thinkers proceeded from the possibility of a harmonious combination of public and private interests while maintaining private property. R. e. t. reflected the practice of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, freedom of personal initiative, idealized private enterprise, and “public interest” acted in it in fact as the class interest of the bourgeoisie. Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov rejected some ideas of French. 18th century materialists about the possibility of combining public and personal interests on the basis of the establishment of "reasonable" laws by enlightened monarchs or wise legislators, as well as the principle of "universal love" of Feuerbach. Personal interest as a motive for behavior is filled in their ethics with social content. In disinterested service to the people, in delivering them from the shackles of serfdom, in the revolutionary transformation of reality, they saw the meaning of a person's life, the criterion of his actions. But, despite the rational content, a cut was invested in R. e. t. rus. revolutionary democrats, this theory did not consistently scientific explanation laws of the development of morality, human behavior in society, for it appealed to man in general, to his abstract “eternal” nature.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Theory of reasonable selfishness

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 "knocks out" of the general line of reasoning, recognizing, along with reasonable egoism, also altruism. But he too 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 initial, 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 each one is entrusted first of all with his own self-preservation, the first and most important of his concerns is - and should appear - it is this constant concern for self-preservation, but how could we take care of it 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; therefore, we are not talking 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.

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 had 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 in line with general ideas about selfishness and personal interest, but brings his thoughts to paradoxical conclusions. First, he interprets self-interest as material gain. Secondly, Helvetius reduces all the phenomena of human life, 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 each to useful actions for him." When I, say, cry for a dead friend, in reality I am crying not for him, but for myself, because without him I will have no one to talk to about myself, to get help. Of course, one cannot agree with all the utilitarian conclusions of Helvetius, one cannot reduce all the feelings of a person, all types of his activity to benefit or to the desire to receive benefits. 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 the book “On the Mind” in 1758 (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 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.

Over the past decades, we have become so accustomed to denying private property, so accustomed to justifying our actions with selflessness and enthusiasm, that we have almost lost our 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 clutches 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 soil of democratic transformations. The question of the relationship between individual and social interests leads us to the question of rational selfishness and the social contract.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

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 "knocks out" of the general line of reasoning, recognizing, along with reasonable egoism, also altruism. But he too 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 initial, 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 each one is entrusted first of all with his own self-preservation, the first and most important of his concerns is - and should appear - it is this constant concern for self-preservation, but how could we take care of it 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; therefore, we are not talking 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.

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 had 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 in line with general ideas about selfishness and personal interest, but brings his thoughts to paradoxical conclusions. First, he interprets self-interest as material gain. Secondly, Helvetius reduces all the phenomena of human life, 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 each to useful actions for him." When I, say, cry for a dead friend, in reality I am crying not for him, but for myself, because without him I will have no one to talk to about myself, to get help. Of course, one cannot agree with all the utilitarian conclusions of Helvetius, one cannot reduce all the feelings of a person, all types of his activity to benefit or to the desire to receive benefits. 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 the book “On the Mind” in 1758 (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.

The novel often talks about selfishness as an internal motivator of human actions. The most primitive egoism is the egoism of Marya Alekseevna, who does no harm to anyone without monetary calculations. Much more sinister is the selfishness of wealthy people. Caring about excesses, striving for idleness - this is the soil on which their egoism grows (fantastic soil). An example is Jean Solovyov, acting out his love for Katya Polozova because of her inheritance.

The selfishness of the “new people” is also based on calculation and profit individual person. “Everyone thinks most of all about himself,” says Vera Pavlovna Lopukhov. But this is a fundamentally new moral code. Its essence is that the egoism of the "new people" is subordinated to the natural desire for happiness and goodness. The personal benefit of a person must correspond to the universal interest, which Chernyshevsky identified with the interest of the working people. There is no lonely happiness, the happiness of one person depends on the well-being of society. "Reasonable egoists" in the novel do not separate their benefit, their idea of happiness from the happiness of other people. Lopukhov frees Verochka from a forced marriage, and when he is convinced that she loves Kirsanov, he "leaves the stage." Kirsanov helps Katya Polozova, Vera organizes a workshop, Rakhmetov helps resolve a dramatic situation. rainbow manifestation moral code is to actively participate in the improvement and transformation of society.

So, the "reasonable egoism" of the heroes of the novel has nothing to do with selfishness, selfishness, individualism. Why then "selfishness"? The fact is that Chernyshevsky, refuting the morality of the old society, denied the divine origin moral laws because it was used in the interests of the ruling classes. He built his system based on philosophical materialism, namely anthropologism. In the center is not God, but man. Bringing to the fore a positive calculation, human rights, Chernyshevsky thereby renounced religion in the name of human happiness.

To follow the theory of rational egoism means to choose an ethically impeccable line of behavior so that under the influence of personal interest not to violate the justice of society, not to infringe on the rights of others. To this end, the heroes of Chernyshevsky are engaged in introspection, objectively assessing feelings and situations, that is, reason.

According to their cultural and ethical views(unlike Bazarov, for example) "new people" adherents " theories of rational egoism". The theory that Lopukhov expounds to Vera Pavlovna becomes the basis of the views of the "new people". “Sublime feelings,” he tells her, mean nothing “before the desire of each for his own benefit<…>Calculate what is more useful for you ... more in line with your interest<…>Your personality ... is a fact; your actions are the necessary conclusions from this fact, drawn by the nature of things. Chernyshevsky N.G. What to do. / Complete collection of op. M., 1949, T. XI. P. 113..

Thus, Chernyshevsky tries to substantiate the earthly origin of the moral norms of people's behavior, all of whose actions are dictated by practical use which is in line with his positive views.

"Reasonable egoists" are Lopukhov, Kirsanov, Vera Pavlovna, the Mertsalovs and others from the circle of "new" people adjoining them. Chernyshevsky describes them in great detail. First, a generalized description: “All their sharply prominent features are features not of individuals, but of a type ... Each of them is a brave person, not hesitant, not retreating, able to get down to business ... this is one side of their properties; on the other hand, each of them is a person of impeccable honesty, such that the question does not even come to mind: “Can you rely on this person in everything unconditionally?” It is as clear as the fact that he is breathing from his chest; as long as this chest breathes, it is hot and unchanging - boldly lay your head on it, you can rest on it. Chernyshevsky N.G. What to do. / Complete collection of op. M., 1949, T. XI. S. 116.

According to Kirsanov's theory, this is not painful, but even pleasant; after all, the more difficult the task, the more you rejoice (out of pride) in your strength and dexterity, performing it successfully. Doing a good deed for someone, you should not accept gratitude for it. Otherwise, the meaning of this case is lost. In the life of new people there is no disagreement between attraction and moral duty; between selfishness and humanity.

The heroes of Chernyshevsky inspire confidence with their actions, and the reader wants to try to live the same way: “They, you see, find their highest pleasure in the fact that people whom they respect think of them as noble people, and for this, my lord, they ... invent all sorts of things no less diligently than you for your own purposes, only your goals are different ... you invent crappy, harmful for others, and they invent honest, useful for others. There. S. 131.

Verochka said: “I want to do only what I want, and let others do the same.” But what happens if the desires of two people come into conflict? You can be sure that the “reasonable egoist” will refuse to fulfill his desire and explain this not by nobility, but by personal gain.

Lopukhov said well about the humanism of this theory: “The match is cold, the wall of the box against which it rubs is cold, the firewood is cold, but from them the fire that cooks warm food and warms the person” Ibid. S. 114..

There is a positivist ethics of this theory, since on the one hand it considers a person as an exclusively biological being, and on the other hand, it still takes into account the spiritual moral principle of his living human nature, which manifests itself in the desire to act for the benefit of others, proceeding not from the category of duty and not from the concept of duty, but from an irresistible, natural desire for happiness (this is what Lopukhov does when he disappears from the life of Vera Pavlovna, not wanting to interfere with her happiness with Kirsanov, while finding the highest pleasure in his work; guided by the same theory, Rakhmetov deliberately refuses love; and Vera Pavlovna, organizing sewing workshops and getting real pleasure in her work, also follows the direction of this theory). “We demand full enjoyment of life for people” Chernyshevsky N.G. What to do. / Complete collection of op. M., 1949, T. XI. P. 201., - Rakhmetov will say, and Chernyshevsky, anticipating the statement of his hero, emphasizes the inevitable humanity of the selfishness of a developed personality: "... our happiness is impossible without the happiness of others." Man cannot really enjoy life alone, only by himself, for himself alone; the condition for his happiness is the absence of the “abyss of evil” around: “I feel joy and happiness” means “I want all people to become joyful and happy” - humanly< ... >these two thoughts are one.” Ibid. P. 57.. The creative force and power of this theory is great, since it is based on a deeply humane idea of self-sacrifice!

The disadvantage of this theory lies mainly in the fact that it is only a theory, the embodiment of which in real life people is hardly possible, because without the practical and spiritual experience of love for all mankind, without the ability for personal attachment, love turns into an abstraction that can develop into despotism and violence.