As a defender of the morality of rational self-interest and the economics of capitalism, I have come across a trend in discussions involving the fallacy of a false alternative. This fallacy is committed whenever one attempts to exclude some relevant possibilities without reason.
In morality, the fallacy is that a self-interested action serves oneself while harming others, or at best, not benefiting them. In politics, it is what free market economist Frederich Bastait pointed out in The Law:
"...every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists [and others opposing capitalism] conclude that we object to its being done at all."
President John F. Kennedy presented the false alternative at its best when he said:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."This quote represents the classic one involving conventional notions of egoism and altruism. Either you ask others to be your servants, or you serve others. Either you sacrifice others to yourself, or sacrifice yourself to others. You are a master, or a slave, but neither a non-slave, nor a non-master. This fallacy results in an ethics of altruism, where good comes from sacrificing your own interests for the sake of others. A sacrificial relationship connects people with a leash: a rope with a noose at both ends.
This false alternative leaves no room for non-sacrificial relationships connecting people with values, e.g., those made in a free market economy, and good friendships. Another alternative to being served, besides being a servant, is to be a trader. People who deal with others as traders produce values to exchange with each other. Both people in the relationship benefit from the interaction. They are both pursuing, and achieving, their own self-interest, without harming or coercing others.
The virtues of generosity and benevolence towards others have their place in an ethic of rational self-interest. On the most basic level, this virtue entails giving strangers the benefit of the doubt, i.e., assuming that they are rational and good people until one has reason to believe otherwise. This assumption is a virtue because such benevolence is reality based: most people do have values to offer. It is in our self-interest to be open to them. In terms of benevolence, it is in our self-interest to help virtuous people actualize their potential. In terms of charity, selfish people give out of compassion for value of another's fight against suffering, and not out of pity for the suffering.
Since a person can benefit from other people's flourishing, a rational individual should value other people's well being. Caring for oneself and for no one else is not selfishness. This concept of selfishness is self-contradictory, as caring for oneself often involves respecting the rights of others and valuing their well being. Other people's well being are sources of values. Selfishness never involves violating the rights of others or valuing their misfortune.
I came across the moral false alternative on the NBC special Tycoon, Tom Brokow's profile of Bill Gates. Brokow asked Gates if after he made his fortune for himself, would he work to serve communities as Carnegie did by building libraries. Brokow's implication was that Bill Gates helped no one in the process of amassing his fortune. But clearly, this is false. If his Microsoft products did not benefit anyone, no one would buy them, and he would have no fortune.
I am not saying that Brokow's suggestion was bad, and that since Gates has helped enough people already, he should do no more. Gates should be selfish about his actions. His purpose on earth is not to serve the masses. Human beings should live for their own sake only. If Gates, or anyone, wants to live in a world where virtuous people can flourish, he must take responsibility for achieving his values. Benevolence toward others is the manifestation of taking such responsibility.
Bastait's observation embodies a common political false alternative. Awareness of this concept can prevent one from committing the fallacy. More importantly, for defenders of freedom, this knowledge can prevent us from falling into the trap provided by our opponents.
For example, it is not in my best interests for me to say that "there should be no public schools because their funding involves coercion, a violation of individual rights," and just leave my argument at that. I would succeed at upsetting people. I should offer the alternative, in this case, private schools. I would explain how private institutions provide higher quality and lower priced goods, education included, and services to more people than any centrally planned service.
Yet, after placating their concerns, there is still work to be done. Many people believe there exists a society that is an independent, quasi-living entity, and not just a label for a set of individuals and their relationships with one another. So my placating these people may just convince them that some aspect of capitalism is "good for society," and that they should respect individual rights just when it is convenient for the "common good," whatever that is. I must make it clear that truly "great societies" result from the protection of individual rights, and that capitalism rewards the virtue of self-responsibility.
A capitalist society consisting of people who do not help the virtuous who struggle to survive would be short lived. Such a free society could emerge only in an environment of people who value human life, and hence respect the rights of individuals to live their own lives. Those who do not value individuals who struggle to live would be so morally corrupt that they would not respect individual rights, and hence would not support capitalism.