In our last entry, “The Darwinian ‘Struggle for Existence’ is Really About Balance,” we showed that competition in evolution can refer to “nature red in tooth and claw” but it can also mean a struggle against the elements or individuals—even different species– cooperating to achieve collective goals.

Similarly, self-interest can refer to benefitting oneself no matter what the harm to others, but it can also mean a more “enlightened” form that aligns personal, societal and environmental goals. Failing to distinguish between these kinds of self-interest can be deadly.

The Federalists knew this, seeking “public happiness” by defining “the true interests of the community” which required “regulation of …various and interfering [self-]interests.”

Their vision of self-interest was working well in 1835, when Alexis d’Tocqueville wrote “How the Americans Combat Individualism by the Principle of Interest Rightly Understood.” The idea and word “individualism” were newly minted and Tocqeuville marveled that “an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts [Americans] to assist each other, and …willingly to sacrifice… [for] the welfare of the state.”

This kind of self-interest knows it needs a thriving community and doesn’t seek to gain at the expense of it. Similar logic animates Pericles’ funeral oration: “It does not matter whether a man prospers as an individual: If his country is destroyed, he is lost along with it.” Even Ayn Rand, the high priestess of selfishness, distinguished between what she called rational and irrational forms.

Sadly, what passes for “rational” self-interest today is often so unenlightened that it undermines rather thanpromotes “public happiness”. The economics profession has promoted this narrow self-interest centered primarily on  maximizing individual welfare. They believe the “ invisible hand” of the market will  align self-interest with the common good, but evolutionists know that happens only in rare circumstances. More often the pursuit of “rational” self-interest leads to bad outcomes, such as the overexploitation of resources (the Tragedy of the Commons) and competitive races to the bottom (as often occurs in the Prisoner’s Dilemma). 

Evolutionary science affirms that the pursuit of self-interest leads to pathological outcomes unless regulated toward a higher common good. Even Richard Dawkins, the high priest of selfishness in evolutionary biology, made this point when he distinguished between selfish genes and vehicles of survival and selection. Selfish genes evolve into cancers unless tightly regulated. Likewise, the unregulated pursuit of individual self-interest leads to social cancers unless “the true interests of the community” are enforced.

The Federalists broadly shared Adam Smith’s view of human nature as not entirely selfish. Nevertheless, they wisely knew that a system of government cannot rely entirely on our virtuous side. Checks and balances must align self-interest with the common good and prohibit pathological self-seeking.

Tocqueville visited America during a time that historians have dubbed the Era of Good Feelings, but it was not to last. Next came the Civil War, The Gilded Age’s extreme inequality, economic collapse, and widespread social unrest—all due in large part to self-interest, wrongly understood. A partial recovery took place during the New Deal era, only to be plunged back into the extreme inequality, economic uncertainties, and social unrest of our current period.

The bottom line is that self-interest must always be enlightened enough—which means regulated enough–to protect and “promote the general Welfare”, which the Constitution lists as a key role of government. Otherwise, the pursuit of self-interest, wrongly understood, will fail the logic of Pericles, the Federalists, Tocqueville, and evolution itself, and will destroy its own survival vehicles (our communities, cities, nations, ecosystems, and planet).

The checks and balances built in to the US Constitution and the invisible hand of the market are not sufficient. They must be supplemented by 200+ years of refined thought, including the insights of evolutionary theory.

Read the full series “Darwinizing the Federalist Papers” below:

  1. Preamble
  2. On the Origin of Socialist Darwinism
  3. More Perfect UNIONS Must Regulate Their Parts
  4. The Human Social Organism and a Parliament of Genes
  5. Morality Regulates Our Social Physiology
  6. The Darwinian ‘Struggle for Existence’ is Really About Balance
  7. Self-Interest, Rightly Understood

Image: “Self-Undermining Ship” by Julia Suits

Published On: September 16, 2019



In the spirit of the Federalist Papers, Publius is a collective pseudonym for the group of people organizing this collection of essays.

One Comment

  • Rich says:

    I’ve been listening to various recent interviews with Dr. Wilson. He’s mentioned how agriculture coincided with what he called the corruptions of absolute power. Has he thought about the possibility that our culture has somewhat corrupted notions of power? I mean the success of groups, the power of groups, he argues ultimately relates to the power individuals share with one another- sharing power, notions of each members worth, co-operating, coordinating- this is what makes groups the strongest. So in reality, isn’t this a better way to think about absolute power? With this in mind, we could look at the behavior of say agricultural kings or any autocrat as having a weaker power and even having a less developed mind, an immature mind that simply acts like a child who doesn’t understand how to get along with others.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.