Many theories bombarded in an attempt to set a moral code by which people are ought to live by. Plenty of controversies and arguments are raised against each one. One of the controversial moral doctrines is egoism, or simply preferring one's self interest over other's interests and desires. The doctrine seems to be reasonable to a certain extent at first, yet it fails drastically when having a second thought about it. Throughout my essay, I will explain the different types of egoism, and argue for each one of them. Finally, I will provide counter arguments for each type along with my personal opinion and analysis.
Egoism is divided into three main parts, psychological, rational and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism deals with motivation; it is a theory or a claim about human nature. It claims that we do in fact pursue our own self-interest in the actions and decisions we take. It is seen as the key to human nature and psychology. Psychological egoists think that charity and donations are done as we 'want ' and 'desire' to help others and not because such action is morally right. When trying to imply this on actions and decisions we make, plenty of flaws stand evident. For instance, we sometimes take actions because we ought to do them, and not because we want. Considering promises, in certain cases we keep a promise because we are obliged to, and not because we want to. Another example might be visiting a relative, or going to a funeral of someone you know, it happens that in many cases you lack the desire to do this social obligation, yet you do it because you ought to and not that you desire to do so. Other arguments for psychological egoism state that people do what makes them happy. This seems a bit irrational since in gen...
... middle of paper ...
... is impossible for one to accommodate for all the desires of others throughout one's life. Asking from a person to give his all to everyone would be degrading to his or her moral identity. Yet, there should always be certain limit of consideration to the people we share our lives with, or even those we interact with on regular basis. Being settled in communities and societies creates a moral obligation on each person towards others. I believe that almost all moral theories fail at some point. Henceforth I think that one should rely on common sense morality, and evaluate each situation according to the limits and conditions governing it. In some situations egoism might be the most rational and moral doctrine to follow, yet in others one should be completely altruistic, so the matter becomes dependent on the moral agent for the evaluation of each situation separately.
In Plato’s Republic and in Rachels' Egoism and Moral Scepticism, the authors attempt to combat psychological egoism, which is the ethical theory which asserts that all human motivation is ultimately self-interested. Each author rejects the possibility of this being a valid conclusion of philosophical ethics, and each instead offers an alternate solution to the origin of human motivation. Whether we are capable of acting out of non self-interested ways directly affects the implementation of ethics around the world. If psychological egoism is true, then ethical philosophy will only be useful when it is specifically beneficial for the individual rather than the collective society. I disagree with this ethical theory, because it is possible for one to act for the benefit of others and his or her own detriment. There are many example cases of an individual doing so and each of which undermines the core belief of psychological egoism: each individual acts solely for his or her own benefit. Instead, through taking pieces of psychological egoist theories I will be able to define a better, dynamic view of the origins of human desires.
Psychological egoism is the view that describes what humans are motivated by. By definition, it states that the actions of humans are merely to fulfill their wants and desires. This means that the actions taken by humans are never to fulfill someone else’s desires but always to fulfill their own. Also this view doesn’t state that the actions of people are right or wrong, it just simply explains why said person is motivated to act in certain ways. For example, if Jack goes on a walk, the only description of why he did this is because it fulfills his desire to do so.
One should note that the inherent selfishness of individualism is not the same type of selfishness as the typical, derogatory form, characterized by a general disregard for anyone but one's self. Rather, the selfishness of an individualist with a solid moral foundation -- whi...
egoism says that to determine a right action, you must apply the egoistic principle to individual
Psychological egoism is a theory about the nature of what motivates us as humans to act for things. Psychological egoism suggests that all our behaviors in everyday life are motivated by selfishness. In other words, it suggests that every action or behavior or decision of every person is motivated by self-interest and not our need
Ethical Egoism A rear assumption is that the needs and happiness of other people will always affect our moral ethics. If we accept this assumption, we think that our moral ethics balance our self-interest against that of others. It is true, that “What is morally right or wrong depends not only on how it makes us feel, but also how it affects others”. The idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively to do in his lifetime for others is known as Ethical Egoism.
However it is agreed upon on the existence and need for morals, thus the call for a minimum conception of morality. Every theory must have this minimum in order to be considered a true moral theory. In essence, it must “guide one’s conduct by reason while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by what one does” (Rachels p.14). This poses a problem for ethical egoism as a moral theory since ethical egoism does not meet either of the requirements. Ethical egoism is a mistaken theory in that it leads to logical contradictions (Rachels p.87). If one were to protect one’s interest that would require one to prevent another from carrying out their duty to their self, it would be both right and wrong to do so. However that is not logical and self-contradictory, thus not would not be basing conduct on reason. To reiterate, the theory of ethical egoism states that one should put his or her own needs before others, this fails the second part of the minimum conception of morality. Furthermore in advocating that one treat others in differently when there are no factual differences is unjustifiable and makes this an arbitrary doctrine. Since there is no relevant factual difference between oneself and others, thus no real logic or reason, then the needs of others are equally important, which goes against the main principle of conduct for ethical egoism. Yet still the theory would not see the need to regard other individuals who may be affected by one’s actions, which again fails the minimum
Many people falsely identify others as egoists. Being an egoist doesn't necessarily mean a person is selfish. In the speech, The Soul of an Individualist, Egoism is defined as “His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A
Ethical egoism is diametrically opposite to ethical altruism, which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if he sacrifices his own interest. Further, researchers justify and rationalize the mental position of egoism versus altruism through an explanation that altruism is destructive for a society, suppressing and denying an individual value. Although the ‘modern’ age unsubtly supports swaggering egoistic behavior in the competitive arena such as international politics, commerce, and sport, in other ‘traditional’ areas of the prideful selfishness showing off, to considerable extent discourages visible disobedience from the prevalent moral codes. In some cases, the open pro-egoist position, as was, per example, the ‘contextual’ interpretation of selfishness by famous German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, can be described as a ‘grotesque anomaly’.
In conclusion, it is apparent that universal ethical egoism has many arguments. Moreover, it is clear that this theory tends toward solipsism, a person's view that only he or she exists, and the omission of many of the deepest human values, such as love and deep friendship. In addition, it violates the principle of fairness and it prohibits altruistic behavior, which one would perceive as morally permissible.
Selfishness is a term fairly notorious for its meaning. A lot of people accept that being selfish is wrong, but no one knows how this came about and why it matters. Who has the right to decide whether someone gets to be selfish or not? In his article “The unselfishness Trap”, Harry Browne says that the best way for people to be happy is when if everyone sacrifices but me. Thomas Nagel, on the other hand, argues in his article “The Objective Basis of Morality” that being concerned about others is more important. Being selfish, for many people, is evil. By definition, selfishness is to be more concerned about yourself than others, but that would essentially make every living human being a “selfish” being.
With the development of modern society, many people say that the society has become miserable, and people only care their own profit. The self-interest is becoming the object of attacking. Thereupon, when we mention self- interest, people always mix up the concept of self-interest with selfishness. As we all known, the idea of selfishness is, “Abusing others, exploiting others, using others for their own advantage – doing something to others.” (Hospers, 59) Selfish people have no ethics, morals and standards when they do anything. At the same time, what is self – interest? Self- interest can be defined as egoism, which means a person is, “looking out for your own welfare.” (Hospers, 39) The welfare people talk about is nothing more than
Ethical egoism is arbitrary and puts ourselves above everybody else for no apparent reason. Ethical egoism splits everybody into two groups, ourselves and everyone else, and says that we are the morally superior. This brings up the question, why are we, ourselves, morally superior to everyone else? Failing to answer this question, means that the ethical egoist has no rational reason to choose ourselves over anybody else. So, with similar rational, it could just have been that everyone else is morally superior to ourselves. The ethical egoist seems to be completely arbitrary in this decision. This theory doesn’t even know why it is putting us, ourselves, above everybody else. One can compare this to a racist who says white people are more superior to blacks (Rachels). Several decades ago they would rationally argue that blacks are intellectually inferior and a threat to the world peace but today there is substantial amount of evidence to refute these claims. Now the racist has no reasons for the racial discriminations and white people and black people are equal, meaning that being racially against black people is arbitrary and has no rational reasoning. Indeed, ethical egoism is just as arbitrary as racism is, but once again, utilitarianism
Egoism is the act of pursuing a particular course of action that is driven by 'sel...
Waymack also makes a good point it is that altruism “unrealistically underestimating the strength of individual self-interest” (Waymack in Hoppe). He is right, generally no matter how good of a person you see yourself as it is inevitable that you will do something in the best interest of yourself. It is simply unrealistic to be entirely altruistic, but one should not become someone who focuses on egoism. The best way to look at consequences is to look at both sides not just what could be done for you or what could be done for others. Then make the decision that will best fit the