No, most people wouldn’t recognize their own self-interest if it stopped them on the street. Neither are people all that great at identifying morally correct actions on the fly.

This is why formulating ethics into easy-to-remember precepts is a time-honored tradition. Most people are too lazy or inexperienced to do their own ethics work.

Is acting only according to your self-interest a good strategy in life?

Not if you plan on living in a society.

most people have a completely flawed understanding of their own self-interest so this question doesn’t make a lot of sense imo

Our decisions are heavily influenced by emotion. We have the sense of empathy, which is an adaptation that makes communal living work. Empathy motivates us to do things for other people sometimes. You can say, “you do helpful things to satisfy your own emotional needs.” But that’s pretty much saying, “you do helpful things because you want to.” I think self-interest is a big factor in how we act, but I don’t think it’s the only factor.

and if everyone does the same, some sort of proper balance will be achieved.

What makes you think that logically follows? Why would it not create competing self-interests that can’t coexist?

Even if you broaden it to acting for indirect reciprocal benefit plenty of people act in ways that don’t have a reciprocal benefit. Just look at the Madleen flotilla, everyone there is putting themselves at personal risk for no personal tangible benefit - the position of self interest would be to stay safely away from the war at home. Look at all the local charities that help vulnerable members of their communities for no personal benefit. Look at people acting against their self interest just within their own families, like supporting elderly parents despite the costs and even though their death would speed their inheritance. There is a huge range of actions that fall outside of both direct and indirect self interest that people take every day.

Do as you will as long as you harm none.

So reading the title I came to say yes with a caveat but you included the caveat. The thing is self interest is ultimately about happiness but humans don’t always understand what brings it. Drug use is sorta the basest level. Chasing literal physcial sensation of pleasure. Sex addiction would be next which is really just chasing drugs that our body naturally makes. Same with danger addiction and such. Then you get to like food addiction. Next is money addicition which is sorta looking at it as a gateway to everything. Recognizing how important others are on different levels means a lot. Its a bit like the hierarchy of needs. You can maybe get physiological on ones own but after that any increase in actual happiness involves having to improve your environment and society and ultimately the earth. So I guess Im saying yes but people can pervert it for not seeing the forest for the trees.

I’ve often thought about the idea that there is really no such thing as true altruisim. Because no matter what, you feel good about doing good. Even if you don’t tell anyone about the good thing you did, you still get a good feeling from it, therefore there is some inherent selfishness involved no matter what.

Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. People should absolutely being doing good things and get to feel good about it.

If you look at it from the political side that this is the basic idea of liberal democracy.

Everyone votes in their best interest and especially in proportional representation you get some compromise of the interests.

Right now at least in politics people act less in their own interest but more of what they emotionally feel like their interest.

I think it’s a bit fatuous to argue that altruism is just self-interest. Sure, people who volunteer or help others in distress usually get some kind of benefit. They feel good about themselves, or they get to live in world that is one trillionth of a percent kinder/happier because of their good deed, etc. But the self-interest argument falls apart when you look at it from a cost/benefit standpoint. Suppose a person spends 2h raising money for the food bank. The hungry people who gets to eat and feed their children benefit the most. The local community benefits a tiny bit, and maybe the volunteer gets a small self-esteem (and other-esteem) boost. On the other hand, if that person were to spend the time earning money for a nice sweater, say, they might get a bigger self esteem boost, a few compliments, and a warm fuzzy garment that lasts for years. The hungry person is still hungry, but remains an abstraction. I would argue that the sweater earner benefitted more than the volunteer. Yet, people still volunteer.

Some people make anonymous donations. Do you really think the self-esteem boost is more valuable than the literal money that person donates?

The argument that the world would be better off if everyone acted in their self interest is ridiculous. That inevitably leads to a might-makes-right system of oppression. The only reason this argument is still being circulated is because shitheads like elon musk, who already has a huge amount of wealth and influence, spam this shit everywhere (on Twitter, Fox News, etc.) to legitimize their undeserved status and evil power.

An argument can be made that all actions people take are for their own self-interest. Even things like helping the community is done for reciprocal benefits for yourself plus the general increase in respect.

I believe if the act benefits someone else more than it benefits yourself, then that is what differentiates selfless from selfish.

As with many things, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.

You have to act in your own self interest at times otherwise no one is going to prioritise your interests. But at the same time you should at times prioritise other peoples interests so that they will do the same in turn, I love the saying, “treat others how you would like to be treated”

That said, if you only ever prioritise others over yourself, at some points this will be a detriment to you.

However, just because you might try and strike the balance of maintaining your own self interest in tandem with those you care about, doesn’t mean you’ll always strike the right balance or not accidentally prioritise yourself at the detriment of someone else, we are only human after all.

That’s where the term “Enlightened Self Interest” comes from.

Naive short-sighted stupid self interest is destructive - both to the community and even to the self interested individual.

But self-interest doesn’t have to go away. We all have wants and needs, and most of our wants and needs are (mostly) harmless.

Instead, self interest can be enlightened - seasoned with understanding of the bigger picture, and with the wisdom of other’s experiences.

Define self interest.

It is in your best interest to invest heavily in childhood education and recruit young people in to the agricultural sector. That is also in society’s best interest. As it happens the only people doing that are those who can see the problem even with short sighted goggles on.

Most people do not look beyond their short sighted goggles. Most of those goggles come with blinders on the sides.

Human civilization as a whole is maintained by people with blinders and goggles on, and we were trucking along just fine, and will continue to do so until we’re standing in ruins of our own making.

Of course, but their self-interest need not be shortsighted and materialistic. A man who willingly walks into certain death to save those he loves/to stand for righteousness is 100% doing it out of selfishness, as it is in our own interests to live with self-respect, self-esteem and few/no regrets.