Homo Economicus: Are We Really Just Out for Ourselves?

 Homo economicus, or the belief that humans make decisions solely on if it will personally benefit themselves, encapsulates the idea that we are only out for ourselves—that our instincts drive how we make decisions and how we treat each other. Are we just like shoppers at the local market, trying to get the best deal for ourselves? Have you met people who will do anything for a good deal? It’s like an addiction, a high they get when they know that what they got was better than anyone else’s. They feel frugal, ecstatic, elated that they got the best of someone else—even if it’s at the expense of someone else. And even better if they got the best of “The Man” or the big organization—like Robin Hood.

Or does it matter to us as humans if our actions cause harm to others—similarly to harming ourselves? Do we see others’ feelings as important as our own? Are there moral codes that we adhere to in relation to how our actions affect others?

In politics and society, how do our moral compasses relate to actions toward others? What is immoral in our eyes, and are those the same for everyone else? As a youth, I ignorantly believed that if everyone would just believe the same as me, it would solve all of life’s problems. I had all the answers—yes, I was a true teenager!

In our political and social spheres, my beliefs were short-sighted and perhaps even arrogant. The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. The more we hear contradicting opinions to our own, the world becomes more dynamic and beautiful. It is in our opposition that we learn a more complete and fulfilling view of mortality. It is in our diversity that we are better able to see ourselves and to have empathy for the person on the other side of the aisle. Our humanity increases, and our homo economicus decreases. We find those beliefs that disgust us, but without seeing the other side of an argument—and accepting that not everyone sees the world through the same glasses as I do, has the same hopes as I do, or envisions the same path to achieving those similar hopes—we naively live within an echo chamber, void of opposition and growth.

Are there universal moral foundations we all agree upon? Foundational ideals such as:

• Care for one another
• Fairness in our actions and outcomes
• Loyalty to ideals and others
• Authority to make decisions and who has the authority
• Sanctity for what we hold to be worth protecting.

Where do we draw the lines in the sand on what we can agree upon as moral and ethical? Or do we all ascribe to our own tribal ideals that fit our background and interests? And how does this play out in politics—is there common ground on basic ideas of decency and humanity? And if so, who determines what those are—who is the leader of these beliefs?

Society and individualism are often at odds, internally within ourselves and also externally in our communities. These conflicting opinions and actions cause divisions in good people and religions, but they are essential if we are to understand one another and have empathy toward all humanity.

Your turn: Where do you notice the pull between getting “the best deal” for yourself and caring for others? What helps you step out of the echo chamber and really see the person on the other side?