Utilitarianism, Egoism, Altruism

By arguing that selfish motives better promote the General Good than benevolent ones, Smith implicitly acknowledges that there are impulses other than selfish ones.  Thus, his Egoism is normative not descriptive, and, so, diverges from the long tradition according to which even Sympathy is selfish, e. g. on the grounds that it is pleasurable.  Regardless, it is traditional in one respect--it implies that self-oriented behavior and other-oriented behavior are mutually exclusive and antagonistic , an implication that grounds the traditional Egoism vs. Altruism debate.  However, Mill's Utilitarianism challenges that presupposition.  For, he proposes that all behavior aims at General Happiness--a descriptive thesis--which is comprised of the Happinesses of both one's own and that of others.  Hence, on that basis, Selfishness and Benevolence are each special cases of Utilitarian behavior, abstracted from the General calculus, i. e. with the de-emphasised components valued at 0.  In other words, each of those is narrow-minded behavior, and any apparent antagonism is actually contingent and derivative, i. e. in cases when one or the other conflicts with General Happiness.  So, even under Zero-Sum conditions, e. g. when Profit is the specific object of Self-Interest, General Happiness is the goal, according to Mill.  Accordingly, Profit-seeking is subject to the criticism that it is small-minded behavior, as might be, in some cases, Altruism.