Egoism
Psychological Egoism:
Egoism deals with the concern for oneself usually to the exclusion of others. In ethics there are two forms of egoism we'll investigation. Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory and maintains that people in fact do act primary out of self interest. Ethical egoism is a normative theory (remember what normative means) and says that people ought to act according to self interest. We'll examine ethical egoism in the next lecture. For now, we'll focus on the psychological version of the theory.
On the surface it may seem odd to say that every human action is done for self interest. After all, don't we sometimes do things for the sake of others? Aren't some of our actions selfless? The example of Raoul Wallenberg seems to suggest that this is true. However, psychological egoism maintains that these actions are just as self interested as any other more obvious examples of self interest. In fact, no action is truly selfish. Why not?
The reason becomes clearer if we ask why people act the way they do. Inevitably the reason comes around to something self serving or self beneficial. Why do people give to charity? It makes them feel good. People find many seemingly selfless acts personally satisfying and psychological egoism maintains that this is the real motivation. A good example of well reasoned egoism comes to us from Thomas Hobbes who looked closely at some seemingly selfless human actions and feelings and recognized their inherent (or so he thought) self interest. Take charity for example. For Hobbes charity "is a delight one takes in the demonstration of one's powers." We feel important and powerful when we are charitable and this is why we do it. It is a secondary effect that others benefit. The same holds true for pity as an emotion. We feel this sentiment primarily because we project ourselves onto the awful circumstances others are facing. As the saying goes, "there but for the grace of God go I." Nothing too selfless here!
There are two primary arguments in favor of psychological egoism. First is the argument that we always do what we most want to do. Our actions seem to demonstrate this and in the case of Raoul Wallenberg, for example, the fact that he choose to go to Budapest just shows that this is what he most wanted to do. You may not think this is true because you might think of alternatives that you would prefer but in any given situation, the egoist would say, you are where you most want to be given the constraints.
However, there are problems with this argument. As Rachels points out the argument implies that people never do things unless they want to do them. This just isn't always true. He gives a good example: I don't want to go to the dentist but I do anyway. Also, sometimes we do things because we ought to do them, not because we want to. The whole idea of ethical obligation which we'll discuss soon presupposes that there is a difference between what we want to do and what we ought to do. Furthermore, sometimes we choose the obligation.
A second flaw is to define self interest or selfishness as doing what we most want to do. If I most want to help others this is the exact opposite of acting selfishly! Again, Rachels helps clarify by distinguishing the object of the desire from the desire itself. The fact that my desire is to do what I want to do doesn't tell us whether I'm selfish. It's the object of the desire that tells us this. If my object of desire is to be helpful and compassionate it's hard to call this being selfish or purely self-interested.
A second argument in favor of psychological egoism is the belief that we do what makes us feel good. The example of Lincoln is supposed to illustrate this. While this example is supposed to illustrate that Lincoln was only acting from self interest it really illustrates the opposite. A truly selfish person would not have cared about the little pigs. The fact that Lincoln gained peace of mind from helping them is precisely what tells us that he was not acting selfishly.
To see just where psychological egoism goes wrong we can clarify some distinctions. First, is the confusion between selfishness and self-interest. There are many things I do which are in my self interest but that are not selfish. Going to the doctor, eating healthy meals, exercising are all good for me and it is in my self interest to do them. It seems strange to call them selfish. To be selfish is to ignore the welfare of others or actively work against it.
A second confusion is between self interest and the pursuit of pleasure. It's easy to see the difference here with the example of smoking. No one would argue that smoking is in their self interest though it may be pleasurable. As Rachels points out these two distinctions show that 'it is false that all actions are selfish and it is false that all actions are done from self interest." This alone ought to spell the end for psychological egoism. In case that's not enough, keep reading!
A third confusion occurs when we think that concern for ourselves is incompatible with concern for others. This is very definitely not true. This is not an either or proposition. We can do what's best for ourselves and others. The Dalai Lama is especially insightful on this point in his counsel to "be wisely selfish." What he means is that it is important to be concerned with ourselves sometimes. After all, sacrificing oneself is not necessarily the best means to help others. But, acting selfishly all the time is not wise either especially when you recognize that the best way to be happy yourself is to help others.
Finally the major problem with psychological egoism is that it is irrefutable. This may sound strange inasmuch as you might think being irrefutable would be a good characteristic for a theory to have. In fact, this is not the case. Every good theory can in fact be refuted at least in principle. What this means is that there must be the possibility of evidence counting against the theory. In must be possible to imagine what this contrary evidence would be. But, psychological egoism doesn't admit this. The example Rachels gives about the doctor pretending to be a mental patient illustrates this very well. So, psychological egoism is untestable. And if it were ever to become testable it would be shown to be false. Our arguments against it would insure this. But that's not necessarily the end for egoism. While it might be false that people in fact act from self interest, it still might be the case that this is how they ought to act. It is to ethical egoism that we now turn to investigate this possibility.
Ethical Egoism:
A central tenet of morality is that we should be concerned for the welfare of others. In fact, some theories maintain that we have a duty to help others when they need our help. However, ethical egoism postulates that the only duty we have is to ourselves and our own welfare. We ought to act according to our self-interest. Regardless of whether psychological egoism is correct, ethical egoism can be defended as a normative theory. In this lecture we'll consider three arguments in favor of and against ethical egoism.
The first argument is that altruism is self-defeating. Our attempts to help others very often fail or worse have to opposite effects than those we intend. Not only that, altruism is overly paternalistic and intrudes on the liberty of those we're trying to help. John Stuart Mill discusses this point in his essay titled On Liberty. As Mill points out, the only justifiable reason to restrict someone's liberty is to prevent them from harming others. We have no right to intrude on anyone's liberty for their own good. Another interesting philosophical source for this line of reasoning is the classical economist Adam Smith. At he points out in The Wealth of Nations:
"Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society."
Furthermore Smith says "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."
But the ethical egoist misunderstands the point of Mill's and Smith's reasoning. Consider the point of the argument. We shouldn't act to further the interest of others because this will not, in fact, further their interest. The best way to further the interests of others is to follow our own self interest. But, this is the opposite conclusion from what the egoist means to draw. The egoists concern is not furthering the interests of others at all. So, why should they care that pursuing one's own interest is the best way to help others? Adam Smith's point was simply that we can help others better by pursuing our self interest and since we should be concerned to help others we should pursue our self interest. No ethical egoist would make such an argument.
A second argument for ethical egoism was put forward by the 20th century philosopher Ayn Rand. She was famous for her novels celebrating self interest and free market capitalism such as Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Her basic line of reasoning is that altruism is basically self destructive of our most important possession; our selves. The supreme value is the individual's own existence and since we have only one life to live it is immoral to ask one to sacrifice this life for the sake of others.
One problem with this line of reasoning is that it presupposes that there are only two options. As we discussed in the lecture on psychological egoism, being concerned about the welfare of others is not necessarily at odds with being concerned with oneself. From Rand's perspective it seems that the only way to express concern for others is to completely sacrifice one's welfare. This, of course, is not necessary.
A third argument for ethical egoism is that it is really compatible with our common sense moral intuitions. According to this view egoism is the best theory to explain the duties we have to others such as the duty not to harm others, not to lie, and to keep our promises. In each case the main argument for having these duties is that it is in our best interest.
But, ethical egoism also fails here because it cannot demonstrate that it is always in our best interest not to lie or harm others. And, of course, from the perspective of the egoist, if it is in fact in our best interest to lie or harm others this is exactly what we should do. So, it appears that ethical egoism is not always in line with our common sense notions of morality. Also, egoism doesn't seem to be able to explain the fundamental reason why certain actions are right to do. As Rachels points out, egoism cannot adequately explain why it is morally right to contribute money to help people who are suffering from famine. This seems like a good example of something common sense would tell us is morally correct. But, ethical egoism couldn't explain why. Clearly, the answer does not exclusively, if at all, involve our self interest. The main reason we should contribute money is to help starving people!
Another possible argument against ethical egoism is that it is unacceptably arbitrary. Ethical egoism maintains that only my interests count and I should act to further those interests. But what makes me so different from everyone else? Why am I so special? If you think about it you discover that there's no good reason for singling one person out as better or more special. We're all basically the same in our desire for happiness and our right to be treated with respect and dignity. Unless there are any relevant differences between ourselves and everyone else we cannot justify different treatment. If my desire for happiness should be fulfilled and if my basic needs should be met so too should everyone else's. There's no good argument for disregarding the interests of others. This seems to be a solid argument against ethical egoism and should encourage us to seek out a theory which addresses the welfare of others. One example of just such an ethical theory is utilitarianism which we'll consider in the next section.
Egoism deals with the concern for oneself usually to the exclusion of others. In ethics there are two forms of egoism we'll investigation. Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory and maintains that people in fact do act primary out of self interest. Ethical egoism is a normative theory (remember what normative means) and says that people ought to act according to self interest. We'll examine ethical egoism in the next lecture. For now, we'll focus on the psychological version of the theory.
On the surface it may seem odd to say that every human action is done for self interest. After all, don't we sometimes do things for the sake of others? Aren't some of our actions selfless? The example of Raoul Wallenberg seems to suggest that this is true. However, psychological egoism maintains that these actions are just as self interested as any other more obvious examples of self interest. In fact, no action is truly selfish. Why not?
The reason becomes clearer if we ask why people act the way they do. Inevitably the reason comes around to something self serving or self beneficial. Why do people give to charity? It makes them feel good. People find many seemingly selfless acts personally satisfying and psychological egoism maintains that this is the real motivation. A good example of well reasoned egoism comes to us from Thomas Hobbes who looked closely at some seemingly selfless human actions and feelings and recognized their inherent (or so he thought) self interest. Take charity for example. For Hobbes charity "is a delight one takes in the demonstration of one's powers." We feel important and powerful when we are charitable and this is why we do it. It is a secondary effect that others benefit. The same holds true for pity as an emotion. We feel this sentiment primarily because we project ourselves onto the awful circumstances others are facing. As the saying goes, "there but for the grace of God go I." Nothing too selfless here!
There are two primary arguments in favor of psychological egoism. First is the argument that we always do what we most want to do. Our actions seem to demonstrate this and in the case of Raoul Wallenberg, for example, the fact that he choose to go to Budapest just shows that this is what he most wanted to do. You may not think this is true because you might think of alternatives that you would prefer but in any given situation, the egoist would say, you are where you most want to be given the constraints.
However, there are problems with this argument. As Rachels points out the argument implies that people never do things unless they want to do them. This just isn't always true. He gives a good example: I don't want to go to the dentist but I do anyway. Also, sometimes we do things because we ought to do them, not because we want to. The whole idea of ethical obligation which we'll discuss soon presupposes that there is a difference between what we want to do and what we ought to do. Furthermore, sometimes we choose the obligation.
A second flaw is to define self interest or selfishness as doing what we most want to do. If I most want to help others this is the exact opposite of acting selfishly! Again, Rachels helps clarify by distinguishing the object of the desire from the desire itself. The fact that my desire is to do what I want to do doesn't tell us whether I'm selfish. It's the object of the desire that tells us this. If my object of desire is to be helpful and compassionate it's hard to call this being selfish or purely self-interested.
A second argument in favor of psychological egoism is the belief that we do what makes us feel good. The example of Lincoln is supposed to illustrate this. While this example is supposed to illustrate that Lincoln was only acting from self interest it really illustrates the opposite. A truly selfish person would not have cared about the little pigs. The fact that Lincoln gained peace of mind from helping them is precisely what tells us that he was not acting selfishly.
To see just where psychological egoism goes wrong we can clarify some distinctions. First, is the confusion between selfishness and self-interest. There are many things I do which are in my self interest but that are not selfish. Going to the doctor, eating healthy meals, exercising are all good for me and it is in my self interest to do them. It seems strange to call them selfish. To be selfish is to ignore the welfare of others or actively work against it.
A second confusion is between self interest and the pursuit of pleasure. It's easy to see the difference here with the example of smoking. No one would argue that smoking is in their self interest though it may be pleasurable. As Rachels points out these two distinctions show that 'it is false that all actions are selfish and it is false that all actions are done from self interest." This alone ought to spell the end for psychological egoism. In case that's not enough, keep reading!
A third confusion occurs when we think that concern for ourselves is incompatible with concern for others. This is very definitely not true. This is not an either or proposition. We can do what's best for ourselves and others. The Dalai Lama is especially insightful on this point in his counsel to "be wisely selfish." What he means is that it is important to be concerned with ourselves sometimes. After all, sacrificing oneself is not necessarily the best means to help others. But, acting selfishly all the time is not wise either especially when you recognize that the best way to be happy yourself is to help others.
Finally the major problem with psychological egoism is that it is irrefutable. This may sound strange inasmuch as you might think being irrefutable would be a good characteristic for a theory to have. In fact, this is not the case. Every good theory can in fact be refuted at least in principle. What this means is that there must be the possibility of evidence counting against the theory. In must be possible to imagine what this contrary evidence would be. But, psychological egoism doesn't admit this. The example Rachels gives about the doctor pretending to be a mental patient illustrates this very well. So, psychological egoism is untestable. And if it were ever to become testable it would be shown to be false. Our arguments against it would insure this. But that's not necessarily the end for egoism. While it might be false that people in fact act from self interest, it still might be the case that this is how they ought to act. It is to ethical egoism that we now turn to investigate this possibility.
Ethical Egoism:
A central tenet of morality is that we should be concerned for the welfare of others. In fact, some theories maintain that we have a duty to help others when they need our help. However, ethical egoism postulates that the only duty we have is to ourselves and our own welfare. We ought to act according to our self-interest. Regardless of whether psychological egoism is correct, ethical egoism can be defended as a normative theory. In this lecture we'll consider three arguments in favor of and against ethical egoism.
The first argument is that altruism is self-defeating. Our attempts to help others very often fail or worse have to opposite effects than those we intend. Not only that, altruism is overly paternalistic and intrudes on the liberty of those we're trying to help. John Stuart Mill discusses this point in his essay titled On Liberty. As Mill points out, the only justifiable reason to restrict someone's liberty is to prevent them from harming others. We have no right to intrude on anyone's liberty for their own good. Another interesting philosophical source for this line of reasoning is the classical economist Adam Smith. At he points out in The Wealth of Nations:
"Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society."
Furthermore Smith says "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."
But the ethical egoist misunderstands the point of Mill's and Smith's reasoning. Consider the point of the argument. We shouldn't act to further the interest of others because this will not, in fact, further their interest. The best way to further the interests of others is to follow our own self interest. But, this is the opposite conclusion from what the egoist means to draw. The egoists concern is not furthering the interests of others at all. So, why should they care that pursuing one's own interest is the best way to help others? Adam Smith's point was simply that we can help others better by pursuing our self interest and since we should be concerned to help others we should pursue our self interest. No ethical egoist would make such an argument.
A second argument for ethical egoism was put forward by the 20th century philosopher Ayn Rand. She was famous for her novels celebrating self interest and free market capitalism such as Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Her basic line of reasoning is that altruism is basically self destructive of our most important possession; our selves. The supreme value is the individual's own existence and since we have only one life to live it is immoral to ask one to sacrifice this life for the sake of others.
One problem with this line of reasoning is that it presupposes that there are only two options. As we discussed in the lecture on psychological egoism, being concerned about the welfare of others is not necessarily at odds with being concerned with oneself. From Rand's perspective it seems that the only way to express concern for others is to completely sacrifice one's welfare. This, of course, is not necessary.
A third argument for ethical egoism is that it is really compatible with our common sense moral intuitions. According to this view egoism is the best theory to explain the duties we have to others such as the duty not to harm others, not to lie, and to keep our promises. In each case the main argument for having these duties is that it is in our best interest.
But, ethical egoism also fails here because it cannot demonstrate that it is always in our best interest not to lie or harm others. And, of course, from the perspective of the egoist, if it is in fact in our best interest to lie or harm others this is exactly what we should do. So, it appears that ethical egoism is not always in line with our common sense notions of morality. Also, egoism doesn't seem to be able to explain the fundamental reason why certain actions are right to do. As Rachels points out, egoism cannot adequately explain why it is morally right to contribute money to help people who are suffering from famine. This seems like a good example of something common sense would tell us is morally correct. But, ethical egoism couldn't explain why. Clearly, the answer does not exclusively, if at all, involve our self interest. The main reason we should contribute money is to help starving people!
Another possible argument against ethical egoism is that it is unacceptably arbitrary. Ethical egoism maintains that only my interests count and I should act to further those interests. But what makes me so different from everyone else? Why am I so special? If you think about it you discover that there's no good reason for singling one person out as better or more special. We're all basically the same in our desire for happiness and our right to be treated with respect and dignity. Unless there are any relevant differences between ourselves and everyone else we cannot justify different treatment. If my desire for happiness should be fulfilled and if my basic needs should be met so too should everyone else's. There's no good argument for disregarding the interests of others. This seems to be a solid argument against ethical egoism and should encourage us to seek out a theory which addresses the welfare of others. One example of just such an ethical theory is utilitarianism which we'll consider in the next section.