Category Archives: Ethical Egoism

Psychological Egoism

Definition. Individuals naturally act in their own interest; i.e., act to increase their own good or benefit.

Some of the Strongest Arguments in Favor

1. Many examples of such behavior, a known, sufficient, representative number of cases to allow induction.

2. Explanations of counter-examples as actually instances of egoism. A person desires some kind of good or benefit whether fame, being well-liked, or eternal life. Even someone who gives away most of their money to charity anonymously gets a sense of satisfaction---even if there is no other reward. Even a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save the lives of her buddies is actually doing action for own good or benefit.

Some of the Strongest Arguments Against Psychological Egoism:

1. Counter-examples of altruism, especially if these are "natural" impulses. (E.g., Mencius passerby who rescues a child from falling into a well.) Note: One does not have to demonstrate that persons always act altruistically--only that this has happened at least once.

2. Responses to psychological egoist claims that any counter-example is actually an example of egoism:

a) Is satisfaction or a good feeling the same as self-interest?

b) A person can have multiple motives, only one of which is self-interest. Often altruism and egoism co-exist and are compatible.

c) Whatever counter-examples opponents offer, psychological. egoists will always explain them as boiling down to self-interest. Therefore, psychological. egoism is an A priori premise, a closed argument, not an empirically demonstrable thesis.

3. Free will/determinism.

For more detailed arguments see article on "Egoism" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/ , the article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm ,, and on e-reserve Tom L. Beauchamp, Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, 56-66.

Ethical egoism.

Definition. Individuals ought to act in their own interest; i.e., act to increase their own good or benefit. They have a choice. They should choose to act in their own interest.

Some of the Strongest Arguments in Favor.

a. Each person most knowledgeable judge.

b. Adam Smiths "Invisible Hand" type of argument (called "conditional egoism" in the IEP web reading listed below.)

c. To criticisms of egoism as causing unacceptable harm to others: replies that caring for others and cooperation are actually in each individuals long run best interest.

Some of the Strongest Arguments Against.

a. Universalism: Should everyone be an ethical egoist? Related to b.

b. Conflict of Interests - no way to resolve

c. Actually, in many cases an argument for utilitarianism as with Smith.

d. Humans have a social character that ethical egoism may cause them to seek to buck. .

For more detailed arguments see the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/the article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm , and on e-reserve Tom L. Beauchamp, Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, 56-66.

Go here to see the original:

Psychological Egoism - University of Idaho

Rational egoism (also called rational selfishness) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest.[1] The view is a normative form of egoism. It is distinct from psychological egoism (according to which people are motivated only to act in their own self-interest) and ethical egoism (that moral agents ought only to do what is in their own self-interest).[2]

Rational egoism was embodied by Russian author Nikolay Chernyshevsky in the 1863 book What Is to Be Done?.[3] Chernyshevsky's standpoint was ultimately socialistic, and was criticised by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in the 1864 book Notes from Underground.[4][5]

English philosopher Henry Sidgwick discussed rational egoism in his book The Methods of Ethics, first published in 1872.[6] A method of ethics is "any rational procedure by which we determine what individual human beings 'ought' or what it is 'right' for them to do, or seek to realize by voluntary action".[7] Sidgwick considers three such procedures, namely, rational egoism, dogmatic intuitionism, and utilitarianism. Rational egoism is the view that, if rational, "an agent regards quantity of consequent pleasure and pain to himself alone important in choosing between alternatives of action; and seeks always the greatest attainable surplus of pleasure over pain".[8]

Sidgwick found it difficult to find any persuasive reason for preferring rational egoism over utilitarianism. Although utilitarianism can be provided with a rational basis and reconciled with the morality of common sense, rational egoism appears to be an equally plausible doctrine regarding what we have most reason to do. Thus we must "admit an ultimate and fundamental contradiction in our apparent intuitions of what is Reasonable in conduct; and from this admission it would seem to follow that the apparently intuitive operation of Practical Reason, manifested in these contradictory judgments, is after all illusory".[9]

Two objections to rational egoism are given by the English philosopher Derek Parfit, who discusses the theory at length in Reasons and Persons.[10] First, from the rational egoist point of view, it is rational to contribute to a pension scheme now, even though this is detrimental to one's present interests (which are to spend the money now). But it seems equally reasonable to maximize one's interests now, given that one's reasons are not only relative to him, but to him as he is now (and not his future self, who is argued to be a "different" person). Parfit also argues that since the connections between the present mental state and the mental state of one's future self may decrease, it is not plausible to claim that one should be indifferent between one's present and future self.

The author and philosopher Ayn Rand also discusses a theory that she called 'rational egoism'. She holds that it is both irrational and immoral to act against one's self-interest.[11] Thus, her view is a conjunction of both rational egoism (in the standard sense) and ethical egoism, because according to Objectivist philosophy, egoism cannot be properly justified without an epistemology based on reason:

Her book The Virtue of Selfishness (1964) explains the concept of rational egoism in depth. According to Rand, a rational man holds his own life as his highest value, rationality as his highest virtue, and his happiness as the final purpose of his life.

Conversely, Rand was sharply critical of the ethical doctrine of altruism:

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute is self-sacrificewhich means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial self-destructionwhich means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. This is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No. Altruism says: Yes."[12]

Go here to read the rest:

Rational egoism - Wikipedia

Egoism : Develop the criticism that ethical egoism is an inadequate moral theory because it does not resolve moral conflicts. Recall that ethical egoism simply denies that theories must do this. I will be arguing that ethical egoism is an inadequate moral theory because it does not resolve moral conflicts. I will first give you the basic background information on ethical egoism as well as information about egoism required to see the flaw in it. Then I will discuss the hole in ethical egoism that makes it an inadequate theory. To fully understand the flaw in ethical egoism you must first know certain principles behind ethical egoism. Ethical egoism is a normative theory which means it states how we ought to act. There are two types of ethical egoism; individual ethical egoism and universal ethical egoism. I will be referring to universal ethical egoism in the rest of the paper. Universal ethical egoism states that everyone should or ought to look out for themselves and their own best interest. It also says that one should only help others when it benefits themselves in the long run. It states that in any conflict, instead of reaching a compromise, each person should reach their own best interest. It is the opposite of altruism which states that everyone should dedicate their lives to helping others whereas ethical egoism states that everyone should lookout for themselves. A definition of what a moral theory should do must also be given. A moral theory should set principles in order to determine what actions are right and what are wrong and from that be able to conclusively end an argument by having the parties reach an agreement. The problem that arises from ethical egoism is that everyone cannot always look out for their own best interests. It is like a chess game in which one person has the opportunity to block the others check, which is in his best interest, but on the other hand it is in the others best interest to tak...

Loading...

Ethical Egoism. (1969, December 31). In MegaEssays.com. Retrieved 11:46, October 29, 2016, from http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/74051.html

MegaEssays. "Ethical Egoism." MegaEssays.com. MegaEssays.com, (December 31, 1969). Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

MegaEssays, "Ethical Egoism.," MegaEssays.com, http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/74051.html (accessed October 29, 2016)

Read the original here:

Ethical Egoism - Mega Essays

James Rachels

Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism is the idea that people have moral obligations only to themselves and that they ought to pursue their own ends exclusively. An ethical egoist would say that one has no duty to help others in need unless doing so happens to coincide with one's own needs. Because ethical egoism prescribes actions, it is distinct from psychological egoism (discussed in the previous selection by Joel Feinberg), which is a descriptive claim about the nature of people's motivations.

Rachels provides several arguments both for and against ethical egoism. The first argument for ethical egoism is that we actually harm other people by looking out for their interests. For example, we may misinterpret their interests and bungle attempts at help, or we may intrude on other people's lives in ways that they dislike, or we may degrade others by offering them handouts. But this justification of egoism is premised upon the value of the general welfare precisely the thing that ethical egoism denies is important. Rather than claiming that only one's own interests matter, this argument states that paying attention to one's own interests is the most effective means to furthering the interests of everyone. It is thus an empirical claim about the best way to benefit people generally, not a normative claim about whose interests ought to count. A second argument for ethical egoism is that altruistic ethics (i.e., those that require one to help others even without benefit to oneself) requires one to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of others, and that were one to follow altruistic ethics one would have nothing to give one's projects, goals, and relationships. But those things are precisely what make life valuable; thus, altruistic ethics denies the importance of the very things that are valuable. Rachels dismisses this argument quickly because it is a false dichotomy; having obligations to others does not entail that one give up all of one's projects.

The final (and most powerful) argument for ethical egoism is that egoism is what underlies our common-sense morality. For example, the reason there are proscriptions against lying and stealing and obligations to help the needy is that we all benefit from those rules. There are two problems with this argument. First, it only provides general rules; thus, even though it might generally behoove us to tell the truth (in order to gain people's trust), it does not proscribe lying when it is in fact advantageous to do so. Second, just because acting for the good of others is to one's advantage, it does not follow that that is the only reason doing so is good.

Ultimately Rachels finds ethical egoism implausible; he concludes this on the basis of an argument concerning morally relevant differences. There is a general moral principle that requires us to treat likes alike, which Rachels articulates as follows:

We can justify treating people differently only if we can show that there is some factual difference between them that is relevant to justifying the

difference in treatment.

For example, the reason why racism is wrong is that racists seek to treat people differently despite there being no morally difference between races. In fact, racist stereotypes (e.g., that black people are lazy or that Jewish people are greedy) are often used to provide morally relevant reasons to treat people differently on the basis of race. Ethical egoism runs afoul of this principle, for it demands that one assign oneself greater moral importance than every other person, despite there being no factual difference that justifies assigning oneself greater importance. Thus, Rachels concludes that ethical egoism is mistaken.

Read more:

Ethical Egoism - Education

The word egoism derives from the Latin ego which means I. Egoism is the idea of being selfish and always putting your own needs first without regard for the needs of others. Someone who is a complete egoist does not care at all about other people, but only about their own goals, interests, and their own benefit. An egoist will not necessarily be greedy and selfish in an obvious sense, for example, they may be polite and friendly, even happy to share and help others. However, their motive will always be their own gain, for example, they will help others in order to be helped in return at a later date, and they will obey laws because this helps to bring about peace and security in society, something which they will benefit from. Their motivation for seemingly thoughtful and caring actions will not be actual concern for others, but intelligent self-concern and prudence. There are two different kinds of egoism, so it is necessary to describe their differences: (i) Psychological Egoism; (ii) Ethical Egoism.

Psychological Egoism is not a moral theory, but aims to be a psychological theory about human motivation. Psychological Egoism holds that all of us are completely selfish and are hardwired to only think of our own needs. It is literally impossible for us to genuinely care about other people. Whenever we perform an action it is always with our own good in mind. When you help a friend it is so they will help you back. If a man gives money to a cancer charity this is not because he really cares about those who are suffering from cancer, but so that he can feel good about himself, or so that there will be good health care available for him to use if he is unlucky enough to get cancer. Ethical Egoism, on the other hand, states that it is possible for people to genuinely care about other people (to be altruistic), but that they should not bother caring about others. Instead people ought to be selfish and think only about their own needs. This article will focus purely on Ethical Egoism.

Altruism

The word altruism derives from the French autres which means others. A person who is altruistic cares about and is motivated by the needs of other people. Altruistic actions are selfless, they are done for the sake of other people and not for any personal gain, perhaps even sacrificing your own needs and desires for the sake of others. Many people argue that actions can only be moral if they are done for the sake of helping others rather than yourself. It is often thought that we have a natural inclination to be selfish, so that learning to think of others is an admirable thing to do. Mother Teresa is often seen as an example of altruism, she was a Catholic nun who dedicated her life to helping the poor in India. A Psychological Egoist would say that she really did this for her own benefit, to feel good about herself or get in to heaven. An Ethical Egoist may view her care for others as genuine, but see it as foolish, because she should have been looking after her own needs, not other peoples needs.

There is a common assumption that you are either selfish in your actions, or selfless. This is perhaps too simplistic, for most of us probably have a complicated mixture of selfish desires and selfless desires. Many philosophers argue that egoism and altruism do not totally exclude each other, you do not have to lose all care for yourself in order to care properly about other people. Jesus said love thy neighbour as thyself which is clearly demonstrating a balance between your own needs and those of others yes you should care about and look after yourself, but you should also recognise the humanity in other people and care about them too: you should not hurt them and where possible you should help them.

Ethical Egoism

Ethical Egoism does not deny the possibility of altruism: Ethical Egoists would admit that it is perfectly possible to care about other people. However, according to the Ethical Egoist you ought not to care about the needs or welfare of others, you should only care about and act on your own needs and interests. This means that Ethical Egoism is a Normative Ethical theory stating how people should act, and stating that you should act selfishly. The theory turns conventional morality on its head by saying it is good to be selfish: people are capable of being altruistic but they should not bother caring for others. Of course it makes sense to help other people and not to be outwardly greedy, to share for example, but only because this is the best way of achieving what you want for yourself in the long term.

Ethical Egoism is a teleological theory according to which the correct action a person should take is the action that has the best consequence for that person themselves, regardless of the effects on other people. As Michael Palmer puts it:

"Egoism maintains that each person ought to act to maximise his or her own long-term good or well-being. An egoist, in other words, is someone who holds that their one and only obligation is to themselves and their only duty is to serve their own self-interest If an action produces benefits for them, they should do it; if it doesnt, then it is morally acceptable for them not to do it."

Michael Palmer, Moral Problems, page 34.

An Ethical Egoist only cares about his own needs and desires, and would view himself as having value, whilst others are not of value to him. This is very similar to the way that a commercial companys only concern is its own profits these companies exist to expand as much as they can, to conquer as much of the market as they can, and to overtake their rivals or even put them out of business. If a company takes actions which benefit its rivals at its own expense then from an economists point of view we would automatically call it mismanaged and condemn its actions as foolish. This is what the Ethical Egoist does to all actions which are altruistic, he condemns them as foolish: people should look after number one and not be burdened with the needs of others. Of course, this doesnt mean that people should go out looting shops, stealing cars, killing enemies and generally doing what they want, because as Thomas Hobbes pointed out, such actions would lead to anarchy and wouldnt be good for anybody. Rather, Ethical Egoists should live in peace with one another, help each other, and work together, because that is the best way for the individual to get the good living conditions he is after. You do not steal from others so they will not steal from you, and so on.

Ethical Egoism & hedonism

In many cases Ethical Egoists are also hedonists, which means that they view pleasure or happiness as the ultimate goal of life, to be specific, their own happiness and pleasure. Generally Ethical Egoists will recommend acting with long term interests in mind rather than seeking short term advantages, for example, instead of going out with friends all the time in your teenage years it would be better to spend more time working for school in order to get good qualifications and a good job in the future, which will bring a happy life rather than just a happy couple of years. Hedonists view pleasure as an intrinsic good, something which is good in and of itself, and they view pain or discomfort as intrinsically bad, however, hedonists argue that sometimes pain or discomfort will have to be accepted in order to achieve a good pleasurable thing. Exercise may be hard work and sometimes painful, and dieting will mean missing out on pleasurable experiences, but the health benefits will make the effort worth it. This is what is know as an instrumental good, something which is not good in itself but which leads to something else which is good. Another example is work; many people find it unpleasant and boing, so work is a bad thing to them. However, work means that you to get paid and so it helps you to get the pleasurable things you want: food, clothing, a house, trips to the cinema, etc. This means work is an instrumental good. For the average Ethical Egoist the goal of life is their own personal long-term pleasure, and achieving this will mean treating others well, but not because they care for others, rather, because it is an instrumental good that will allow them to have a pleasurable life.

Epicurus

The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BCE) was a hedonist and stated pleasure is our first and kindred good. It is the starting point of every choice and of every aversion. It is from his name that we derive the word epicurean which means someone who revels in the delights of food, which is ironic because Epicurus himself had a very plain diet since he suffered from stomach problems. Taking a line somewhat similar to Buddhism, Epicurus argued that true pleasure was the absence of pain in the body and trouble in the soul and so he actually advocated a simple life where people try to give up desiring all the things they cannot have. He did not think that a life of sex, drink, and good food was a truly pleasurable life because he held that the greater the upside is the greater the downside will be also, for example, the more you drink the bigger the hangover is. Instead Epicurus advocated a life of sober reasoning and knowledge.

Epicurus also argued that a life cannot be truly pleasurable unless it is also a life of prudence, honour, and justice, which indicates an important idea that the happiness of the individual is dependent on the happiness of his community, so we must therefore treat others well. Epicurus would have said that the best way to be happy is to have friends and to act honourably towards other people.

Adam Smith

Adam Smith (1723 1790) was a philosopher and economist, and was a champion of private property and free market economy. He took the view that intentionally serving your own interests will bring benefits for all. Philip Stokes gives the following example: suppose that Jones, in seeking his own fortune, decides to set up and run his own business, manufacturing some common item of everyday need. In seeking only to provide for his own fortune, Jones entrepreneurial enterprise has a number of unintended benefits to others. First he provides a livelihood for the people in his employ, thus benefiting them directly. Second, he makes more readily available some common item which previously had been more difficult or more expensive to obtain for his customers. Smith argued that a free market and competition would ensure that businesses kept their prices at competitive rates, helping to make customers better off as well as the business owners. Through selfish action everyone is better off, therefore, capitalist selfishness is the key to universal happiness and prosperity for all.

However, arguably the consequences of businesses acting in a self-interested way is not necessarily benefits for all; we need only look at the appalling conditions of people working in factories during the Industrial Revolution to see that this is so. Today the people of industrialised countries have a much more comfortable lifestyle, but most of the rest of the world still languishes in poverty and exploitation, and it is precisely through their subjugation that we have our high standard of living: we have so much material wealth because we exploit those who are powerless and poor, we give them the choice of working in dire conditions to make us cheep goods or starving. Arguably, the factories have not improved, they have just moved.

James Rachels

James Rachels discusses Ethical Egoism, but he does not endorse it, and in fact gives reasons to reject it. None the less, his discussion of Ethical Egoism is very enlightening. He states that the idea that we have duties to others is a common assumption. We are often made to think that there is a natural obligation towards others because they are people and because our own actions could help or harm them. One argument for Ethical Egoism is that this simply is not so, we have no specific reason to think of others as important, we have no specific obligations towards them, whereas on the other hand, we have a self-evident duty to look after ourselves.

One argument for Ethical Egoism that he considers is that altruism is self defeating. According to this perspective each individual person is in the best position to serve their own interests, whilst others are not. I know intimately what I need, whereas others, if they try to take an interest in my life and help me, may not know what is best and should therefore mind their own business and not interfere. There is a sense in which helping others is an intrusion on their privacy, and similarly, there is the view that charity towards others is degrading: it robs them of their individual dignity and self-respect. The offer of charity says, in effect, that they are not competent to care for themselves. Rachels rejects this argument as ridiculous as it is perfectly clear what a starving man needs, especially if he is actually asking for help. Also, arguing that we shouldnt interfere because it invades another persons dignity hardly seems like a valid egoistic argument, as it appeals to the needs of other people.

Next Rachels considers Thomas Hobbes (1588 1679). Hobbes believed that selfishness was natural (he was a Psychological Egoist), and therefore that Ethical Egoism was the only theory that made any sense. Rather than saying that Ethical Egoism runs counter to our common sense morality, Hobbes argued that it actually explains and underpins it. When we treat others well, help them, and do our best not to harm them, it is all done in order to create the kind of stable society which is best for our own personal needs. By not killing or stealing from others we ensure that we ourselves will not be killed or stolen from. By putting welfare measures in place we ensure that we ourselves will be helped in times of trouble. Hobbes takes the view that when we join society we make a promise not to hurt others and to help them when they are in need, and we make this promise so that we in turn are not hurt and so that we may be aided in times of need. What Hobbes has tried to do, then, is say that Ethical Egoism is not counter to our common morality, it is the foundation of our common morality.

Ayn Rand

Another famous egoist is Ayn Rand (1905 1982), however, her version of Ethical Egoism is very different from the average case of acting in self-interest. For Rand it is important to be a hardworking and creative person and to be as independent as you can. In her view people should work hard to satisfy their needs, they should not expect others to give them a hand-out or a free ride. If you work hard and achieve a good life for yourself, such as having wealth for example, then you have earned what you possess and no one should have the right to demand that you give it away to those less fortunate or successful than yourself. She views altruism as a moral philosophy founded on leeching, she sees it as a philosophy which tells people that they ought to give up all they have, and all their own interests, to satisfy the needs of others. In her view people should strive to fulfil their own needs and not be parasitical upon those who are more successful than themselves.

Interestingly, Rand also rejects those who get into positions of power and leech off of those below them, people such as tyrants and gang leaders. This is what marks her Ethical Egoism as different from that of the average Egoist; whereas the average Ethical Egoist will say that it is fine to abuse others to get what you want, all that matters is your own gain, Rand believes that this is wrong you should work hard to get what you have, not steal it from others in some way. If you have worked hard and been creative then you have a right to be proud of yourself and to reap the rewards. In her view those who label this kind of independence and self-motivation as selfish are doing so because they wish to force creative and useful people to share with them. The following quote is from her novel, The Fountainhead:

"The first right on Earth is the right of the ego. Mans first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule alone. Rulers of men are not egoist. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is their subjects, in activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter."

Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

Criticisms of Ethical Egoism

As you may imagine, there are many criticisms of Ethical Egoism, the most obvious simply being the insistence that selfish actions do not have moral worth. Read these criticisms and consider how an Ethical Egoist might respond to defend their view:

1) Anything can be justified, so long as you can profit from it and get away with it.

It is clear that if everyone were to adopt Ethical Egoism then, in general, life would function admirably well, people would help each other because team work produces the best results for every individual, and people would not harm each other because everyone is better off in a world where they feel safe and protected. However, what if the opportunity arises for a person to gain from harming another person and get away with it? Suppose, for example, that I am good with computers and know how to hack websites and hide my trail; why not commit some fraud and live a millionaire lifestyle? Or what if I was in a secluded place and came across a man asleep on a bench with a briefcase full of cash; why not kill him and take the cash and run? And why stop at one killing if I can profit from many, perhaps becoming a drugs baron, living in luxury safe and secure whilst people die to line my pockets? If Ethical Egoism is true then it becomes morally correct to hurt others when you can gain from it, just so long as you can get away with it. Surely it is the very point of morality to hold our selfish and violent urges at bay, and yet, Ethical Egoism gives them clear justification as and when you can get away with it.

However, James Rachels claims that this attack against Ethical Egoism is ineffective because it simply presumes that Ethical Egoism is false; the criticism assumes that it is wrong to hurt others for personal gain, but this is essentially just assuming Ethical Egoism is false. Surely an Ethical Egoist would just accept that it was right to hurt others for gain, as Hobbes put it, in a war or conflict the cardinal virtues are force and fraud violence and trickery.

2) Ethical Egoism cannot provide answers for moral conflicts

Kurt Baier argues that the reason why we need morality is in order for it to settle conflicts of interest, however, Ethical Egoism does not provide a means to resolve these conflicts and actually exacerbates them, thus, it is an insufficient moral theory. Imagine, for example, that Kate and Bruce are getting divorced and are arguing over who should have custody of their children. Surely moral rules should be in place to establish who is the best parent to care for the children, who is most deserving of the custody, and so on: morality is there to resolve the problem. However, under Ethical Egoism a judge has no reason to care who the children end up with because neither option is particularly in his interests, unless one side offers a bribe of course. Moreover, Ethical Egoism would actually exacerbate the problem by encouraging both Kate and Bruce to argue all the more in pursuit of their own desires: each ought to do whatever they can to get their own way, without any care or concern for the effects on the other party, or even their children. So we see that rather than resolving the conflict Ethical Egoism will actually make it worse. Baier states that the Ethical Egoist solution to the conflict is for each side to up their game in their efforts to win custody, for Kate to seek to liquidate Bruce (either kill him or somehow make him ineligible to win) and for Bruce to attempt the same with Kate. This escalates the conflict and so is the exact opposite of what morality is meant to do.

James Rachels argues that this attack is not completely successful against Ethical Egoism because it is based on the assumption that morality exists to resolve conflicts in order to create harmony, a view which and Egoist might not agree with. An Egoist might say that life is essentially a long series of conflicts in which each person is struggling to come out on top. For the Egoist morality is not about amicably resolving conflicts and compromising, the good man is the one who wins and gets what he wants.

3) Ethical Egoism is arbitrary, like racism

James Rachels rejects Ethical Egoism on the basis that it makes unjustifiable and arbitrary distinctions between people. There are numerous ethical perspectives which create distinctions between groups of people, for example, racism. Racism works by dividing the people of the world in to two groups, those of my race and those not of my race. Next it asserts that one group (your own) is superior in some way to the other group. This is then used to justify unequal treatments of those who are not of your race. In the past white racists have asserted that non-whites are intellectually inferior, or morally inferior, and this meant that it was acceptable for whites to get better treatment than non-whites, and it was acceptable for non-whites to do the menial jobs, or to be slaves, or to have their countries invaded. In reality there are no important genetic or cultural differences between the races which would justify saying that one group was superior to the other in any way. We reject racism, xenophobia, and other prejudices such as sexism because we see them as groundless: there is no valid reason to make a division between one superior group and another inferior group. Rachels argues that if we look closely at Ethical Egoism it makes the same mistake:

"Ethical Egoism is a moral theory of the same type [as racism]. It advocates that each of us divide the world into two categories ourselves and all the rest and that we regard the interests of those in the first group as more important than the interests of those in the second group. But each of us can ask, what is the difference between me and everyone else that justifies placing myself in this special category? Am I more intelligent? Do I enjoy my life more? Are my accomplishments greater? Do I have needs or abilities that are so different from the needs or abilities of others? In short, what makes me so special? Failing an answer it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine, in the same way that racism is arbitrary. And this, in addition to explaining why Ethical Egoism is unacceptable, also sheds some light on the question of why we should care about others."

James Rachel, Ethical Egoism

Rachels rejects Ethical Egoism because it takes the view that an individual is, from his own perspective, more important than others, even to the point where he might willingly sacrifice millions for his own needs, but there is no rational basis for an individual to think of himself as being any more important than any others. Thus, Ethical Egoism is baseless and we must recognise that others and their needs are just as important as ourselves and our own needs. Yes it is normal to seek your own happiness, but this cannot justify treating others like they have little or no value, because these other people are no different from ourselves.

Summary and Conclusion

Whether or not people have a duty to help others, or at least not to harm them, is a key question in Normative Ethics. Ethical Egoists argue that you should only care about yourself, and ignore the needs of others. This means that it would be acceptable to hurt other people for your own benefit, so long as you can get away with it. James Rachels argues that it is illogical to think of yourself as being more important than anyone else, indeed, that this is equivalent to racism. Is he correct, or is selfishness a good thing?

More here:

Dave's Philosophy - Ethics: Ethical Egoism & Altruism

Egoism is the concept of acting in ones own self-interest, and can be either a descriptive or a normative position. Psychological egoism, the most well-known descriptive position, holds that we always act in our own self-interest. In contrast to this, ethical egoism is a normative position: it claims that one should act in ones self-interest as this makes an action morally right, such that the claims of others should never have weight for oneself unless their good can serve ones own good. Similarly, rational egoism maintains that, in order to act rationally, one must act in ones self-interest, and the fact that an action helps another person does not alone provide a reason for performing it, unless helping the other person in some way furthers ones own interests.

All these positions deserve to be critiqued: psychological egoism in that people find the greatest happiness and meaning in states where they are self-giving, for example when in love, parenting a child, or contributing to society; and ethical egoism by the challenge of numerous philosophical and religious ethical systems that place self-interest within the context of contributing to the greater good.

Psychological egoism holds that every human has only one ultimate goal: his or her own good (where this good can variously be defined as welfare, happiness or pleasure). This description is verified by widespread and frequent observations of self-interested behavior. For instance, we often motivate people to act in certain ways by appealing to their self-interest in the form of rewards and punishments, while acts which appear altruistic are often shown to be motivated by self-interest. Likewise, one can find a non-altruistic explanation for the apparently altruistic behavior of organisms in general. Worker bees are an interesting case in point: although they seem to act solely for the sake of their hive with no concern for their own welfare, sociobiologists offer an account of this behavior in terms of their genes survival. They hypothesize that natural selection favors altruistic behavior in either cooperative relations in which all members benefit (reciprocal altruism) or familial relations (kin altruism). Both forms of altruism are concerned with the survival of ones genes: acts of reciprocal altruism increase ones chances of survival, and therefore ones genes chances of survival, while ensuring the survival of ones relations ensures the survival of a percentage of ones genes. For a worker bee, ensuring the survival of her sister worker means that she has ensured the survival of half of her genes. Thus, sociobiologists typically claim that, on a genetic level, altruism cannot exist. However, psychological egoism is a stronger position, as it claims that, regardless of what happens on a genetic level, the individual him or herself is motivated by thoughts of self-interest. Thus, while it allows for action that does not accomplish its goal of maximizing self-interest, as well as action that is at odds with ones intentions (a weak will), most forms of psychological egoism rule out both altruistic behavior and acting solely out of respect for ones duty. Importantly, psychological egoism allows for goals other than ones own self interest, but claims that these goals are then means to realizing ones own well-being.

There are in turn two forms of psychological egoism. Exclusive egoism makes the strong claim that people act exclusively out of self-interest, and therefore altruistic behavior does not, in fact, exist. On the other hand, predominant egoism makes the weaker claim that people seldom act unselfishly, and when they do so, it is typically only because their sacrifice is small and the beneficiaries gain is much larger, or when they are partial to the beneficiary in some way: when the beneficiaries are, for example, friends, lovers or family.

Exclusive egoism allows for no exceptions; this means that one instance of someone who does not act exclusively out of self-interest is sufficient to show that exclusive egoisms thesis is empirically false. Imagine a soldier throws himself on a grenade in order to prevent other people from being killed. His motivation for this act of self-sacrifice might quite plausibly be his desire to do his duty or to save the other peoples lives, while attempting to explain his action in terms of self-interest would appear to be a wholly implausible move. The exclusive egoist may want to defend her position by arguing for some kind of ulterior self-interested motive, such as pleasure. Perhaps our soldier believes in an afterlife in which he will be rewarded ten-fold for his apparently selfless act on earth, or perhaps, if he had not hurled himself on the grenade, he would be overcome by guilt and a concomitant sense of self-loathing. In both cases then, he is, at least from his perspective, acting in his self-interest by acting in this apparently selfless manner. There are two problems with this response. The first is that, while it might explain many instances of apparent self-sacrifice as motivated by egoistic concerns, it does not necessarily cover all cases. The psychological egoist must argue that all instances of ostensible altruistic behavior are in fact motivated by self-interested desires. If, for instance, our soldier disagrees with this, and claims that his action was truly altruistic in motivation, the exclusive egoist must respond that he is lying or is deceiving himself. At this point, however, exclusive egoism turns out to be trivially true, which means that it is unfalsifiable, since there is no empirical instance that could in principle disprove the hypothesis. As with the trivially true statement all ostriches that live on Mars have gold and purple polka dotted wings, this version of psychological egoism provides no useful information and therefore fails as an empirical theory. It does not allow us to distinguish, for instance, between our soldier and the soldier who thrusts a child onto the grenade in order to save himself. Whereas we generally think that the latter is behaving selfishly, while our soldier is acting in a selfless manner, exclusive egoism maintains that both soldiers are equally selfish, because both are acting in their self-interest.

Alternatively, the psychological egoist might opt for a non-trivial response to the soldier counter-example. She could argue that, as infants, we have only self-regarding desires; desires for our own well-being, for instance. However, as we grow older, we find that desiring things for their own sake eventually satisfies our self-regarding desires. We then come to desire these things for their own sake. For example, I might detest exercise, but also find that exercising results in physical well-being; after a while, I will begin to desire exercise for its own sake. This would preclude the common objection to psychological egoism, that one must desire things other than ones welfare in order to realize ones welfare. However, then the psychological egoist will have moved away from exclusive egoism. It may be true that our soldier would not have had a present desire to save others, unless saving others was connected in the past with increasing his welfare, but this does not mean that his present desire is selfish. At this point, the psychological egoist could adopt the weaker stance of predominant egoism which allows for exceptions, and thereby forestall counter-examples like our heroic soldier; moreover, predominant egoism is both an empirically plausible and non-trivial position.

In her novel, Atlas Shrugged, Russian emigre Ayn Rand sketches the portrait of a man who feels responsible for himself and no one else. John Galt is the archetype of the individual who practices what Rand calls the virtue of selfishness: a man for whom true morality consists in resisting the temptations of self-sacrifice, sympathy and generosity. In the fictional figure of John Galt we find the embodiment of egoism as an ideal. Similarly, the move from psychological egoism to ethical egoism is a move from a descriptive to a normative position. Ethical egoism claims that for ones action to count as morally right it is both necessary and sufficient that one act in ones self-interest. Precisely how one acts in ones self-interest is a matter of some divergence among ethical egoists. As with psychological egoism, ethical egoism comes in both a maximizing and a non-maximizing flavor: the former holds that self-interest must be maximized for an action to count as ethical, while the latter simply claims that one should act in ones self-interest and thus leaves the possibility for acting in others interest open. There is also a distinction between short-term and long-term interests: I might gain a short-term benefit by stealing from my friends, but experience a long-term loss when they discover the theft and I lose those friends. In addition, ethical egoism can also apply to rules or character traits, as well as acts. Finally, acting in ones self-interest means acting for ones own good, but this good can variously be defined as ones happiness, pleasure or well-being. There are various permutations of these conceptions, but considering that the arguments for and against them are generally relevantly similar, I will very broadly define ethical egoism as the thesis which states that in order for ones actions to count as ethical, one should act to promote ones self-interest, where self-interest is taken to mean ones own good.

There are several arguments in support of ethical egoism. Ethical egoists occasionally appeal to the findings of psychological egoism as support for their normative claims; however, regardless of whether psychological egoism is true or not, the jump from a descriptive to a normative position is fallacious, as one cannot use supposed existing conditions as justification for how one ought to behave. A more valid move is to argue that, as psychological egoism is true, it is impossible to motivate people on non-egoistic grounds. Thus, ethical egoism is the most practical moral theory, or the most capable of motivating people to act ethically. However, as we have seen, exclusive egoism just seems false, and substituting it with predominant egoism loses the crucial claim that it is impossible to motivate people to behave altruistically. On the other hand, if psychological egoism is true, it follows from psychological egoism that I cannot intend to perform an action which I believe is not in my self-interest. However, if I am wrong, and this action is in my self-interest, then ethical egoism stipulates that I should perform an action that I cannot intend. The appeal to psychological egoism therefore fails to ensure its practicality.

However, this is not necessarily a shortcoming of an ethical theory, as part of the value of an ethical theory may lie in its offering us an ideal for us to live up to. Setting aside the appeal to its supposed practicality, ethical egoists might alternatively claim that ethical egoism best fits our commonsense moral judgements. For instance, it captures the intuition that I should not let others exploit me, and unlike consequentialism, allows me to keep some good for myself, like a house, even though giving this house to someone else might benefit him slightly more. Moreover, it stipulates that it is often in ones best interests to ostensibly take other peoples interests into account so as to secure their cooperation. I derive a much larger long-term benefit if I act generously and compassionately towards my friends, for example, than if I steal from them, even though theft might provide the greatest short-term benefit to me. Nevertheless, it appears that ethical egoism is also at odds with some of our most deeply held ethical beliefs. It mandates that one should only ever help someone else if doing so benefits oneself, which means that one is not morally obligated to help those who cannot help or hinder one. Imagine I can easily save a drowning child, but none of the players in this scenario can offer me any beneficial cooperation in return for saving the child (like praise) or negative retaliation for failing to help (like scorn). Further, say that I am indifferent to the situation presented to me, and regardless of what I do, I will feel no sense of guilt or pleasure, then ethical egoism will remain silent as to whether I should save the child. Moreover, if there is some slight uncompensated sacrifice I will have to make, like getting my shoes wet, then ethical egoism will tell me to refrain from saving the drowning child. However, we generally think that, in this case, there is a moral obligation to save the child, and ethical egoism can neither explain how such a duty might (validly) arise, nor generate such a duty. Ethical egoism therefore appears to be morally insensitive to situations which we ordinarily think demand great moral sensitivity. We can further see that ethical egoism will potentially generate counter-intuitive duties in situations where the individual in need of help cannot reciprocate (like physically or mentally disabled people) or where the sacrifice one might need to make is not compensatable. Ethical egoism will, for instance, condemn the action of the soldier who throws himself on the grenade as ethically reprehensible, precisely because it entails an irreversible sacrifice (loss of life) for the soldier, while we ordinarily think it is an ethically admirable action, or at the very least, not a morally repugnant one.

Furthermore, a number of critics have argued that egoism yields contradictory moral imperatives. There are generally two inconsistency charges against ethical egoism. The weaker of the two lays this charge: say ethical egoism recommends that X and Y buy a particular item of clothing on sale, since buying this item is, for some reason, in the self-interest of each. But there is only one remaining article; hence, ethical egoism recommends an impossible situation. However, the ethical egoist can reply that ethical egoism does not provide neutral criteria: it advocates to X buying the article of clothing for X, and advocates to Y that Y buy the article for Y, but ethical egoism has nothing to say on the value of X and Y buying the same article of clothing.

The second inconsistency argument claims that, in any given situation, the ethical egoist must aim to promote her own self-interest, but if her brand of egoism is to count as an ethical theory, she must simultaneously will that everyone else also act to promote their own self-interest, for one of the formal constraints on an ethical theory is that it be universalisable. Say I am a shopkeeper, and it is in my best interest to sell my products at the highest practically possible profit, it will generally not be in my clients best interests to buy my products at these high prices. Then if I am an ethical egoist, I am committed to recommending a contradictory state of affairs: that I both sell the products at the highest possible price and that my customers pay less than the highest possible price. The ethical theorist, however, can respond that, although she morally recommends that the customers pay less than the highest possible price, this does not necessarily mean that she desires it. Jesse Kalin provides an analogy with competitive sports: in a game of chess, I will be trying my utmost to win, but I will also expect my opponent to do the same, and I may even desire that he play as good a game as possible, because then the game will be of a far higher standard. If the analogy with competitive gaming holds, it is therefore not inconsistent for me to recommend both that I attempt to sell my products at the highest possible price and that my customers attempt to buy them at lower than the highest possible price.

However, this move to making an analogy with competitive games cannot preclude the worry that ethical egoism is not sufficiently public for it to count as an ethical theory. What is meant by this is that ethical egoism is at odds with public morality (which generally appears to value altruism) and one can therefore imagine many cases in which the ethical egoist might find it in her interests not to profess ethical egoism. Imagine I am an ethical egoist and I donate a large sum to a charity because it gives my company a good image and I receive a large tax deduction for doing so. Then it is most definitely not in my best interests to reveal these reasons; rather, it is to my advantage that I pretend to have done so out of a spirit of generosity and kindness. Leaving aside worries of duplicitous and unreliable behavior, it does not seem as if ethical egoism can truly be made public without the ethical egoists interests being compromised. Yet it seems as if an ethical theory requires precisely this ability to be made public. Moreover, although it meets the formal constraints of an ethical theory it must be normative and universalisable as noted above, it also fails to provide a single neutral ranking that each agent must follow in cases where there is a conflict of interests. Just what makes for a moral theory, however, is contentious, and the ethical theorist can subsequently respond to any argument against ethical egoisms status as an ethical theory by claiming that the failed criteria are not really constraints that an ethical theory must adhere to. A more elegant solution, however, is to move to rational egoism, which might provide the ethical egoist with non-ethical reasons for adhering to ethical egoism.

Rational egoism maintains that it is both necessary and sufficient for an action to be rational that it promotes ones self-interest. As with ethical egoism, rational egoism comes in varying flavors. It can be maximizing or non-maximizing, or can apply to rules or character traits instead of actions. Certain versions might claim that acting in ones self-interest is either sufficient but not necessary, or necessary but not sufficient for an action to count as rational. However, as with ethical egoism, relevantly similar objections to and defenses for the various species of ethical egoism can be made. The salient common feature amongst all variants is that all claim that the fact that an action helps another person does not alone provide a reason for performing it, unless helping the other person in some way furthers ones own interests. Stronger versions might also hold that the only underived reason for action is self-interest.

In support of their thesis, rational egoists most commonly appeal to the way in which rational egoism best fits our ordinary judgements about what makes action rational. However, as we saw with the soldier counter-example, both psychological and ethical egoism fail to make sense of his action, and rational egoism will similarly generate a counter-intuitive response to this example. It will classify his action as fundamentally non-rational because it has permanently violated his self-interest. However, we would ordinarily characterize his action as rational, because it realizes his strong non-self-interested preference to save the lives of others. In other words, we take the safety of others to be a legitimate motivation for his action, whereas his hurling himself on a grenade in order to save a chocolate cake would ordinarily be seen as non-rational. Yet rational egoism would not allow us to distinguish between these two cases, because it does not recognize the demands of others as alone providing one with reason to act in a certain way.

Rational egoism furthermore appears to make an unjustified weighted distinction between ones own self-interest and the good of others. Imagine I decide that I should act to increase the good of brown-eyed people over that of others. Justifying this preferential treatment on the grounds that brown-eyed people just are more deserving of preferential treatment is not rational. James Rachels argues that ethical (and here, rational) egoism, makes a similarly unwarranted or arbitrary move, because it claims that I ought to act in one persons interest (myself). The rational egoist might want to respond that non-arbitrary distinctions can be made by ones preferences. The fact that I like oranges and not apples makes my decision to buy apples rather than oranges non-arbitrary, and similarly, my preference for my own good makes my commitment to achieving my own good non-arbitrary. However, as we have seen, there are cases (as with the soldier example) where I might lack a preference for my own welfare. In these instances, rational egoism cannot give me a reason to pursue my self-interest over that of others. Nevertheless, rational egoism might hold that, in these cases I am wrong, simply because we must take it as a ground assumption that our own good comes before that of others. In other words, the preference for ones own good needs no further justification than the fact it is ones own good that one is pursuing. When it comes to the preferential treatment of brown-eyed people, we generally do not accept their being brown-eyed as a good reason for their preferential treatment, but when it comes to acting for our own good, we seem to take the fact that it is our own good as a reasonable justification for doing so; we do not ask why acting in ones own good is pertinent.

However, although this may be so, this argument does not demonstrate that acting to promote ones own good is always sufficient or necessary for an action to count as rational. There are instances where we take an action to be rational, but where the agent makes no reference to pursuing his own good as justification for performing the action. The villagers of Le Chambon provide us with a real-life example of this. Le Chambon was a pacifist French village responsible for saving the lives of several thousand Jews from the Nazis, often at a great risk to the inhabitants. The reason they gave for this altruistic behavior was that it was simply their duty to help anybody in need. Here, no reference is made to their own good (and indeed, their own welfare was often severely jeopardized by their actions), and we generally take their concern for the others welfare as a good reason for their actions.

At present, there seems to be no good reason to accept the theses of psychological, ethical or rational egoism. Nevertheless, egoism in general presents us with a useful insight into the moral life by pointing out that, contra what many of us might suppose, morality and self-interest do not necessarily conflict. Indeed, there may be many cases in which there are good self-regarding reasons for acting ethically and egoism forces us to question whether we pay sufficient attention to legitimate self-interest when assessing moral situations.

A small selection of literature in popular culture dealing with ethical egoism and altruism.

All links retrieved September 14, 2013.

This article began as an original work prepared for New World Encyclopedia and is provided to the public according to the terms of the New World Encyclopedia:Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Any changes made to the original text since then create a derivative work which is also CC-by-sa licensed. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.

More:

Egoism - New World Encyclopedia

Ethical egoism is the normative theory that the promotion of one's own good is in accordance with morality. In the strong version, it is held that it is always moral to promote one's own good, and it is never moral not to promote it. In the weak version, it is said that although it is always moral to promote one's own good, it is not necessarily never moral to not. That is, there may be conditions in which the avoidance of personal interest may be a moral action.

In an imaginary construction of a world inhabited by a single being, it is possible that the pursuit of morality is the same as the pursuit of self-interest in that what is good for the agent is the same as what is in the agent's interests. Arguably, there could never arise an occasion when the agent ought not to pursue self-interest in favor of another morality, unless he produces an alternative ethical system in which he ought to renounce his values in favor of an imaginary self, or, other entity such as the universe, or the agent's God. Opponents of ethical egoism may claim, however, that although it is possible for this Robinson Crusoe type creature to lament previous choices as not conducive to self-interest (enjoying the pleasures of swimming all day, and not spending necessary time producing food), the mistake is not a moral mistake but a mistake of identifying self-interest. Presumably this lonely creature will begin to comprehend the distinctions between short, and long-term interests, and, that short-term pains can be countered by long-term gains.

In addition, opponents argue that even in a world inhabited by a single being, duties would still apply; (Kantian) duties are those actions that reason dictates ought to be pursued regardless of any gain, or loss to self or others. Further, the deontologist asserts the application of yet another moral sphere which ought to be pursued, namely, that of impartial duties. The problem with complicating the creature's world with impartial duties, however, is in defining an impartial task in a purely subjective world. Impartiality, the ethical egoist may retort, could only exist where there are competing selves: otherwise, the attempt to be impartial in judging one's actions is a redundant exercise. (However, the Cartesian rationalist could retort that need not be so, that a sentient being should act rationally, and reason will disclose what are the proper actions he should follow.)

If we move away from the imaginary construct of a single being's world, ethical egoism comes under fire from more pertinent arguments. In complying with ethical egoism, the individual aims at her own greatest good. Ignoring a definition of the good for the present, it may justly be argued that pursuing one's own greatest good can conflict with another's pursuit, thus creating a situation of conflict. In a typical example, a young person may see his greatest good in murdering his rich uncle to inherit his millions. It is the rich uncle's greatest good to continue enjoying his money, as he sees fit. According to detractors, conflict is an inherent problem of ethical egoism, and the model seemingly does not possess a conflict resolution system. With the additional premise of living in society, ethical egoism has much to respond to: obviously there are situations when two people's greatest goods the subjectively perceived working of their own self-interest will conflict, and, a solution to such dilemmas is a necessary element of any theory attempting to provide an ethical system.

The ethical egoist contends that her theory, in fact, has resolutions to the conflict. The first resolution proceeds from a state of nature examination. If, in the wilderness, two people simultaneously come across the only source of drinkable water a potential dilemma arises if both make a simultaneous claim to it. With no recourse to arbitration they must either accept an equal share of the water, which would comply with rational egoism. (In other...

Excerpt from:

Ethical Egoism - College Essays - 1656 Words - StudyMode

There are several theories about the principle of the GOOD that would serve human decision making in reaching a conclusion as to what is the morally correct thing to do. One approach or group of theories is known as being Teleological.

TELEOLOGICAL THEORIES

In this approach to ethics it is the consequence of the act that is the basis for determining its worth. One of the most basic of consequences is the impact on people and one of the most basic of all values for determining whether something is good or not is the pleasure that it brings to someone. Some think that emotional and physical PLEASURE is the ONLY basis for determining what is GOOD

Theories of the GOOD based on pleasure are termed HEDONISM

There are two popular theories of the GOOD based on pleasure. One is based on pleasure to one self. EGOISM

The other is based on the pleasure that results for all humans in the world. UTILITARIANISM.

This section will focus on EGOISM.

==========================================================================

There are five types of Egoism the focus here is on the last:

ETHICAL EGOISM

Assuming that my killing him will be in my best interest but detrimental to my grandfather, while refraining from killing him will be to my detriment but in my grandfathers interest, then if ethical conflict-regulation is sound, there can be a sound moral guideline regulating this conflict (presumably by forbidding this killing). But then ethical egoism cannot be sound, for it precludes the interpersonally authoritative regulation of interpersonal conflicts of interest, since such a regulation implies that conduct contrary to ones interest is sometimes morally required of one, and conduct in ones best interest is sometimes morally forbidden to one. Thus, ethical egoism is incompatible with ethical conflict-regulation.

References: Baier, Kurt. 1991 "Egoism" in a Companion to Ethics. (ed. P. Singer) Oxford: Blackwell, 197-204.

Internet Encyclopedia READ: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/egoism.htm

A famous Egoist was Thomas Hobbes

Ethical Egoism and EGOISTS READ: http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect7.html

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/Routledge/R_Egoism.html

Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05328a.htm

Ethical EGOISM Powerpoint presentation http://ethics.sandiego.edu/presentations/Theory/EthicalEgoism/index_files/frame.html

Literature on Egoism-links to sites http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/Egoism/index.asp

ETHICAL EGOISM

An action is morally right if and only if it is to the advantage of the person doing it.

ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL EGOISM

1. An altruistic moral theory that demands total self-sacrifice is degrading to the moral agent.

Objection: This is a false dilemma: there are many non-egoistic moral theories that do not demand total self-sacrifice.

2. Everyone is better off if each pursues his or her self-interest.

Objection: (a) This probably is not true in practice; and (b) True egoism isn't concerned with what will make everyone better off.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST ETHICAL EGOISM

1. Provides no moral basis for solving conflicts between people.

2. Obligates each person to prevent others from doing the right thing.

3. Has the same logical basis as racism.

4. The egoist cannot advise others to be egoists because it works against the first egoists interest.

5. No one person can expect the entire worlds population to act in such a way as to produce the most benefit (pleasure) for that one person.

The Truth in Psychological Egosim by Hugh LaFollette

http://www.stpt.usf.edu/hhl/papers/egoism.htm

So although we all know people who attempt to live their lives as egoists, they are not generally well liked. Being so totally focused on the self is not likely to make someone many friends. Egoists can but friends but most people avoid egoists as they are thought to be untrustworthy.

EGOISM is not the basis for the moral foundation needed for social life.

There are other options.

turn to next section

See the rest here:

Egoism - Queensborough Community College

Abstract: Psychological egoism, the view that people act solely in their own interest, is defined and shown not to be a meaningful ethical philosophy.

I. The distinction between psychological egoism and ethical egoism reflects the contrast of "is" verses "ought," "fact" verses "value," or "descriptive" verses "prescriptive."

II. By way of clarification of relevant terms, James Rachels, among others, points out common confusion concerning selfishness and self-interest.

III. The Refutation of Psychological Egoism: arguments to the conclusion that the generalization everyone acts from the motive of self-interest is false.

IV.Interestingly enough, the same objections can be raised against the view termed, "psychological altruism": all persons act from the motive of helping others, and all actions are done from other-regarding motives. (Psychological altruism is a view advanced only from the position of a "devil's advocate.")

V. As a final note, it should be mentioned that psychological egoism can't be saved by psychoanalytic theory. I.e., Freud's notion of the unconscious raises the possibility that we have unconscious desires and can act against our conscious inclinations. If it is argued that we always unconsciously seek our self-interest, then this view is untestable and circular as well.

Consider the following passage from Freud's Interpretations of Dreams*:

"A contradiction to my theory of dream produced by another of my women patients (the cleverest of all my dreamers) was resolved more simply, but upon the same pattern: namely that the nonfulfillment of one wish meant the fulfillment of another. One day I had been explaining to her that dreams are fulfillments of wishes. Next day she brought me a dream in which she was traveling down with her mother-in-law to the place in the country where they were to spend their holidays together. Now I knew that she had violently rebelled against the idea of spending the summer near her mother-in-law and that a few days earlier she had successfully avoided the propinquity she dreaded by engaging rooms in a far distant resort. And now her dream had undone the solution she had wished for; was not this the sharpest contradiction of my theory that in dreams wishes are fulfilled? No doubt; and it was only necessary to follow the dreams logical consequence in order to arrive at its interpretation. The dream showed that I was wrong. Thus it was her wish that I might be wrong, and her dream showed that wish fulfilled (italics original)"

*Sigmund Freud, The Interpretations of Dreams (New York: Avon, 1966), 185.

Recommended Sources

"We Are Not Always Selfish": (this site) A classic discussion of the many facets of ethical egoism in notes on James Rachel's work.

Altruism "in-built" in humans: BBC report of discovery of altruistic behavior in infants summarized from the journal Science.

"Studies Show Chimps to Be Collaborative.": A summary of an article from Science News describing research indicating that chimpanzees cooperate without the expectation of reward.

"Egoism": Explanation of egoism and altruism with a brief summary of refutations and defenses excerpted from Richard Kraut's "Egoism" in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Ethical Egoism: (this site) The various forms of ethical egoism are defined. Standard objections to ethical egoism are evaluated, and the conclusion is drawn that ethical egoism is incomplete.

Original post:

Psychological Egoism - Philosophy Home Page

It is said that selfishness is a human nature. Consequently, selfishness is something that relates to egoism. Selfishness is in many forms, which will be discussed later on. Both of these subjects have been a center of discussion for years now. Among the subjects that have been part of it is the topic about psychological egoism vs. ethical egoism.

As for the psychological egoism vs. ethical egoism, the latter is described as the belief in which it states that humans are usually always selfish. Humans are always acting out of their own self-interest, which leads to happiness. The former, however, is the belief that humans are supposed to act only concerning their own interest.

Based on the beliefs itself and how each was defined, the kinds of egoisms that people practice are now differentiated. One type of egoism tells about acting based on or with the presence of a motive and the other acting on something based purely for the persons benefit.

In psychological egoism, it is explained that individuals only do good things because it is in their own interest to do so. As an example, a person decided and chose not to steal for the fact that he or she is afraid to feel the guilt or afraid to go to prison. As for ethical egoism, it is explained that it is just right for individuals to act based on their own self-interest. It means a person acts out for his or her benefit only.

In general, it is described as the empirical doctrine in which the motive for which a person makes a voluntary action is one that falls for that same individuals benefit. In a wider scope, in every action that a person does, even though it is seen as something that is for the benefit of others, there is still a hidden motive that serves for the self-interest of the person.

There are two arguments under this. One, this egoism is considered as a descriptive theory that resulted from the observations made on human behavior. Thus, it can only become a real empirical theory once there are no present exceptions. Second, there is no claim as to how a person should act. Thus, it is a fact that all individuals are seeking their self-interest in the theory. For psychological egoist, they view this as a verifiable and non-moral.

It is described as that doctrine that is prescriptive or normative. It means a person is supposed to seek something only for his own welfare. The primary idea in this belief is that only the persons own welfare is the one valuable for that same individual. There are also two arguments here. One, not all people are naturally seeking just their self-interest. It only claims that people should seek ones self-interest even if not everyone will do the same thing. The second, if it is to be regarded as one theory, then it must be applicable to all persons.

In the end, there is only one thing that can be concluded about the subject psychological egoism vs. ethical egoism. It is that even with the stated theories on egoism, people are not always motivated to act based on selfishness. At times, people just act based on pure kindness in mind.

Dec 20, 2013-Flow Psychology Editor

Continue reading here:

Psychological Egoism vs Ethical Egoism | Flow Psychology