Does the Bible advocate ethical egoism? Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest.


According to ethical egoism, I should only do what benefits me. That doesn't mean I must be the only benefactor. Ethical egoism does allow for others also benefiting from my actions, only so long as the act also serves my long-term interests.

The Bible could be seen as advocating a similar view. I must have faith because without it I can't be saved, and being saved is in my long-term interest.

Does the Bible advocate ethical egoism?
Short Answer, No.

1. The model of Jesus argues against it

In laying down His life for creatures he made, Jesus had absolutely nothing to gain. Being God, he is in no way contingent upon us. Despite this, he willing gave up the perks of being God, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death - even the death of a cross! Now, yes, because of this, at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father. (Phillippians 2:5-12) But remember, he was already God, so it wasn't needed. So, from the standpoint of Jesus, the answer would have to be no.

2. Biblical teaching argues against it

When Jesus said, "You must take up your cross, and follow me," he did so knowing there would be no gain. When Jesus said, Blessed are you when men shall persecute you and revile you for My names sake, he was being clear that this was not a path to power, riches, or fame. Even Peter admitted that the disciples had given up houses and family- and Jesus replied that they wouldn't be paid back for any of those things in this life. So, from an instructional point of view, the answer must be no. 

In Acts 5, when the first believers came together, they willingly shared all they had in common. From a Randian perspective, for example, this is sheer lunacy. To give up all they had just out of love is completely contradictory. So, from an early practioner's point of view, the answer would have to be no.

Furthermore, James and many others stress humility - that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.  Using the term doulous (a slave), Christians are regularly told that their duty is to serve one another in Christ, and that "the first shall be last, and the last first - " all the exact opposite of self-interested service of any kind.

3. The definition of Love argues against it

Overall, the major theme of Johanine literature is the idea that people should be able to recognize Christians by their love. Love often involves a cost - As Jesus said, no greater love hath a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Jesus showed his love for us in this - that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us!  Likewise, Paul explicitly defines love as something that "Seeketh not its own" (1 Cor 13).  So, from a theological point of view, the answer would be no.

4. Original Sin suggests that grace overrides man's choice anyway

Finally, far more Christians adhere to the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity than its heretical opposite (which I now know to call Pelagianism). Total Depravity says that as a result of original sin, man's will has a fundamental defect that prevents it from seeking God on its own. That man can be saved is an act of grace - unmotivated by selfish interest from a perfect God - and (as Paul says), not through any work, lest any man should boast.  In other words - even if man is inherently self-interested in the out come of faith, it isn't really a choice he is even capable of making in the first place.  (Here, some Arminians might say that God supernaturally enables man to make a free choice - but even there, the act of grace is required to get man to the place where he can choose in the first place.)

tl;dr>

In short, I can't think of a way to make Rand and Jesus go together. So, from a answer standpoint, I'd have to say, no.