"We are selfish when we are exclusively or predominantly concerned with the good for ourselves. We are altruistic when we are exclusively or predominantly concerned with the good of others"
About this Quote
Adler’s neat, almost clinical symmetry is doing more than defining two moral postures; it’s trying to drain them of romance. By hinging both “selfish” and “altruistic” on the same adverb pair - “exclusively or predominantly” - he turns what people treat as a melodrama into a matter of emphasis and proportion. The sting is that the vices and virtues aren’t opposites so much as mirror images: both can be forms of tunnel vision.
That word choice is the subtext. “Exclusively” indicts purity. It implies that the most morally suspicious thing isn’t caring about yourself, or caring about others, but becoming monomaniacal about either. Adler, a midcentury popularizer of philosophy (and a man deeply invested in clear categories), is also quietly setting up a broader Aristotelian point: ethics lives in the distribution of attention, not in grand declarations of intent. You don’t get to wash your hands by calling your choice “altruism” if it’s still a kind of obsession.
The context matters because Adler wrote in an American culture that loved moral binaries: self-made individualism versus civic duty, charity versus greed, Ayn Rand versus social gospel. His definition resists the era’s ideological casting call. It treats selfishness and altruism as behavioral tendencies rather than political identities.
The most provocative implication is how little room this leaves for everyday moral self-congratulation. Most of us aren’t saints or villains; we’re accountants of concern, constantly reallocating the budget. Adler’s framing asks: who’s missing from your ledger, and why?
That word choice is the subtext. “Exclusively” indicts purity. It implies that the most morally suspicious thing isn’t caring about yourself, or caring about others, but becoming monomaniacal about either. Adler, a midcentury popularizer of philosophy (and a man deeply invested in clear categories), is also quietly setting up a broader Aristotelian point: ethics lives in the distribution of attention, not in grand declarations of intent. You don’t get to wash your hands by calling your choice “altruism” if it’s still a kind of obsession.
The context matters because Adler wrote in an American culture that loved moral binaries: self-made individualism versus civic duty, charity versus greed, Ayn Rand versus social gospel. His definition resists the era’s ideological casting call. It treats selfishness and altruism as behavioral tendencies rather than political identities.
The most provocative implication is how little room this leaves for everyday moral self-congratulation. Most of us aren’t saints or villains; we’re accountants of concern, constantly reallocating the budget. Adler’s framing asks: who’s missing from your ledger, and why?
Quote Details
| Topic | Ethics & Morality |
|---|
More Quotes by Mortimer
Add to List
