EGOISM, is a theory of human nature that may be stated in psychological terms (each person seeks to promote his own good) or in ethical terms (each person ought to promote his own good). Egoism stands in contrast to altruism (q.v.), which also has a psychological form (each person seeks to promote the good of others) and an ethical form (each person ought to promote good of others). Egoism should be distinguished from egotism, which means vanity.

利己主义，一种人性理论，用心理学术语可描述为（每个人都力图提升他自己的利益），或在伦理学术语中描述为（每个人都应该提升他自己的利益）。利己主义与利他主义（参阅）是对立的，利他主义也有心理学的形式（每个人都力图提升他人的利益）和伦理学的形式（每个人都应该提升他人的利益）。应该将利己主义与自我中心论相区别，因为它意味着虚荣。

Historical Background. Egoism is compatible with a variety of views about what is good. Historically, however, it has been closely associated with various forms of hedonism, which defines the good as pleasure in some form. The roots of egoism lie, therefore, in Greek thought, particularly in the individualism, subjectivism, and relativism of Sophist thought and in the hedonist doctrines of the Cyrenaics and Epicureans. In classical and in Christian thought, no major philosophical conflict was seen between egoism and altruism, because no sharp distinctions were drawn between the good for an individual, the good of the natural and social orders, and, simply, the good. See also CYRENAICS; EPICUREANISM; SOPHISTS.

历史背景。利己主义与各种有关什么是好的观点相一致。然而，从历史上看，它与各种形式的享乐主义密切相关，而享乐主义将好定义为某种形式的快乐。因此，利己主义的根源在希腊思想中，尤其是在诡辩家思想的个人主义、主观主义和相对主义中，在昔勒尼学派和伊壁鸠鲁派的享乐主义学说中。在古典和基督教思想中，在享乐主义和利他主义之间并未看到重大的哲学冲突，因为在个人利益，自然和社会秩序的利益之间并未出现明显的区别，简单地说，都不错。也可参阅昔勒尼学派；伊壁鸠鲁学说；诡辩家词条。

Hobbes.  It was Thomas Hobbes (q. v.), in the 17^th century, who first raised the problem of a conflict between egoism and altruism. He rejected the Platonic, Aristotelian, and Christian idea that the good for each individual coincides with the pursuit of the highest good, and claimed that all human action is motivated by the will to self-preservation and to power over others. According to Hobbes, even actions that seem altruistic are always motivated by some underlying egoism. Hobbes’ view of human nature was accepted by Bernard Mandeville, La Rochefoucauld, the French Encyclopedists, and by many 20^th century psychologists, particularly Freud and his followers.

霍布斯。在17世纪，是托马斯·霍布斯首先提出在享乐主义与利他主义之间冲突的问题。他拒绝了柏拉图、亚里士多德以及基督教对每个个体的善与对追求最高的善是一致的观念，并宣称所有人类的行为都是出于自我保护和支配他人的意志。根据霍布斯的观点，甚至看上去利他主义的行为也总是被一些潜在的利己主义所驱使。霍布斯对人类本性的观点被伯纳德·曼德维尔，拉罗什富科，法国百科全书的编纂者，以及许多20世纪的心理学家，尤其是弗洛伊德和他的追随者们所接受。

Responses to Hobbes.  Attempts to answer Hobbes gave rise to the “selfishness controversy” beginning in the 18^th century. Replies to Hobbes followed THREE main lines. One, initiated by Richard Cumberland (q. v.), accepted psychological egoism but said that ethical altruism is one of the chief means by which man advances his own good, a view developed later by the utilitarians Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. A second response to Hobbes’ egoism (also initiated by Cumberland, and defended by Thomas Reid and Richard Price, among others), said that ethical altruism can be known by reason to be as natural to man as psychological egoism. The third response to Hobbes, by Shaftesbury, Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Smith, and others said that since psychological altruism is true and psychological egoism is false, ethical altruism is a better theory than ethical egoism.

对霍布斯的回应。回答霍布斯的尝试引发了始于18世纪的“自私争论”。对霍布斯的回应主要有三条主线。第一条，由理查德·坎伯兰发起，接受了心理利己主义，但说伦理利他主义是主要手段之一，通过它人促进了他自己的利益，一种后来由功利主义者杰里米·边沁和约翰·斯图尔特·密尔发展的观点。对霍布斯利己主义（也是由坎伯兰发起，并受到托马斯·里德和里查德·普莱斯等人的辩护）的第二个回应说，伦理利他主义对人而言可被理性认为像心理利己主义一样自然。由沙夫茨伯里，弗朗西斯·哈奇森，大卫·休谟，亚当·斯密等人对霍布斯的第三个回应说，既然心理利他主义是真的，而心理利己主义是假的，那么伦理利他主义相比伦理利己主义就是一种更好的理论。

Modern Attitudes.  Henry Sidgwick, writing in the late 19^th century, was the first ethical analyst in the contemporary sense. He argued that there is no logical transition from psychological facts alone to normative ethical conclusions. Both ethical altruism and ethical egoism rest upon intuition, are logically independent, and are irreconcilable without some appeal to theology.

现代的看法。亨利·西季威克，于19世纪末写作，是当代意义上的第一位伦理分析家。他认为，单独从心理学事实到规范的伦理学结论，不存在任何逻辑的过渡。伦理利他主义和伦理利己主义两者都依靠直觉，逻辑上是独立的，而且不诉诸于神学是不可调和的。

The development of analytical attitudes and techniques has led in two different but related directions. Some contemporary writers argue that when the concepts are clarified, it can be shown that ethical egoism is faulty on logical or ethical grounds. Others, however, tend to see the history of egoism as a history of confusion, and they have set out to clarify the issues by locating the problem in the nature of language.

分析态度和技术的发展导致了两种不同的，但相关的方向。一些当代作家认为，当概念被澄清时，它就能证明伦理利己主义在逻辑或伦理根据上是错误的。然而，其他人趋向将利己主义的历史视为混乱的历史，而且他们已着手通过确定语言本质中的问题来澄清问题。

                                                                     BERNARD PEACH

                                         Duke University

                                          伯纳德·皮奇

                                      2023年2月24日译

（译者注：该词条位列《大美百科全书》1985年版，第9卷，第760页至761页）