The theory of psychological egoism is indeed plausible. The meaning of plausible in the context of this paper refers to the validity or the conceivability of the theory in question, to explain the nature and motivation of human behavior (Hinman, 2007). Human actions are motivated by the satisfaction obtained after completing a task that they are involved in. For example, Mother Teresa was satisfied by her benevolent actions and activities that she spent her life doing. As Hinman (2007) points out, she was likely to reduce in activity if she experienced any dissatisfaction in her endeavors.
Therefore, no matter how much altruism theorists try to argue about the degree of inclination of an action towards non self-interest, the two can never be separated (Hinman, 2007). That is the nature of human behavior that we are all motivated by self interest in any action that we undertake. Hugh (1898) observed that altruism actions are a disguised form of self seeking pleasure nature of human beings. This paper will explore the points that support the theory this theory with expounded explanation that approve the plausibility of psychological egoism theory. It will also look at the old ideas and compare them with the modern ones. This essay will further discuss the psychological egoism theory is descriptive that carries the doctrine that weak side of psychological egoism to enhance objectivity.
Psychological egoism theory is descriptive in nature. It carries the doctrine that every action that is performed by a person has self-interests in it. This is the nature of human beings has a motive that serves the welfare of the agent. People keep their motives hidden from others to serve their interest of maintaining a go...
... middle of paper ...
...hey need. Egoism and morality work hand in hand and people can be trained to conform to certain rules that will give them more pleasure. However, egoism theory is deficient in some way in that it is ambiguous on some issues.
References
Hinman, L. M. (2007). Ethics a Plurastic Approach, 4th edition. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Hugh, L. (1988). The Truth in Psychological Egoism: Reason and Responsibility. New York : Wadsworth.
Michael, S. (1978). Empirical Basis for Psychological Egoism Brainstorms. California: Bradford. p72-3.
John, R. (1971). The Circumstances of Justice: Egoism in Context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, C.M. (1898). Psychological and Political Ethics. New York: Hafner Press.
Feinberg, J. (1998). Psychological Egoism in Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ethics: The Big Questions , edit ed by James P. Sterba, 259 -275. Malden, Massachusets: Blackwel Publishers Ltd, 1998.
The human ego feeds off of self-interest, constantly wanting praise and validation. Morals, existent in all humans are a prime target for the ego. Moral superiority satisfies the ego. Joan Didion criticizes the human tendency to disguise their sanctimonious actions as moral imperatives in her essay, “On Morality”. Didion expresses distaste for the ego, describing it as a “monstrous
Egoism is the philosophical concept of human self-interest and the relationship between ethics, altruism, and rationality (Robbins). Psychological egoism and ethical egoism are the two concepts or positions that explain how one is or ought to be motivated to obtain their self-interest. The difference between ethical and psychological egoism is that the former deals with how a person should act and the latter deals with a universal concept practiced by all. With the theory of psychological egoism, selfishness proves it to be false; thus, can true ethical egoism be possible?
The descriptive claim made by Psychological Egoists is that humans, by nature, are motivated only by self-interest. Any act, no matter how altruistic it may seem on the outside is actually only a disguise for a selfish desire such as recognition, avoiding guilt, reward or sense of personal ‘goodness’ or morality. For example, Mother Teresa is just using the poor for her own long-term spiritual gain. Being a universal claim, it could falter with a single counterexample. And being that I believe this claim to be bunk I will tell you why!
The view of an Ethical Egoist, henceforth to be referred as the egoist, is quite simple in a way. The way to determine WWTED (What would the egoist do?), can be easily done if one refers back to the principles of an egoist. The view of an egoist depends on the following: 1. We ought always to do what is in our long term best interest, 2. The right act, or duty, is the act that maximizes our long term intrinsic good, and 3. Our duty is to do that which benefits us the most in the long term. In other words, an egoist’s actions and decisions depend on whether the act will benefit himself in the long run.
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, speaks a little about this topic. This topic is important because it talks why an individual acts good or evil. Adding on to that, the ego and id are included in this novella. The id is the aggressive side of a person. We could say the id is the bad side rather than the good one. A well-known man, named Sigmund Freud has been studying Ego, Superego, and id on an individual. The ego is the decision making side of a person, and by definition, “is the
Psychological egocentrism states that people engage in interactions with other to satisfy their self-interest. In the example I used above the psychological egoist would be the one to share the resources to further improve their chances of survival that way. The ethical egoist would rather hog the supplies to improve his well-being. The different point of view both these types of egoisms share is pronounced very well. The psychological egotist would view the choice of helping the other human as part of helping themselves and their well-being. On the other hand, ethical egoist would have a view that shows that you prioritize yourself and only you even if it causes harm to others. This clearly states the only affair that matters to a person is their well-being. Psychological egoism is a theory based on years of researching individuals and seeing the choices they make to help their
One’s desire is egoistic if and only if it concerns the benefit of oneself and not anyone else. On the other hand ones desires are altruistic if and only if it concerns the benefit of at least someone other than oneself. The pros of altruism state that people will begin to take advantage of you, it is impossible to only make others happy, and you would be neglecting your own needs. The pros of egoism include establishing a greater sense personal identity in a community, promoting a sustainable household, it also promotes that all basic personal needs will always be met. The other half of this argument, the con sides of egoism, state that it will ruin relationships, it completely eliminates objectivity, you are neglecting the needs of others, you would be isolated and independent, and it requires that everyone practice its philosophy. The issue with that is that most people are not comfortable with the concept of always putting themselves
This topic is important in helping us as philosophers get down to the roots of why we do the things we do, answering questions about the human motive and the philosophy behind reasoning we cannot explain. Psychological egoism provides an answer to philosophical questions like “Why do we do the things we do?” It was perhap...
The idea of each person ought to pursue his or her own self -interest exclusively to do in his life time for others is known as Ethical Egoism.
• Once more, the ordinary science’ proves itself as the master of classification, inventing and defining the various categories of Egoism. Per example, psychological egoism, which defines doctrine that an individual is always motivated by self-interest, then rational egoism which unquestionably advocates acting in self-interest. Ethical egoism as diametrically opposite of ethical altruism which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if sacrifices own interest. Also, ethical egoism differs from both rational and psychological egoism in ‘defending’ doctrine which considers all actions with contributive beneficial effects for an acting individual
Egoism is a teleological theory of ethics that sets the ultimate criterion of morality in some nonmoral value (i.e. happiness or welfare) that results from acts (Pojman 276). It is contrasted with altruism, which is the view that one's actions ought to further the interests or good of other people, ideally to the exclusion of one's own interests (Pojman 272). This essay will explain the relation between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. It will examine how someone who believes in psychological egoism explains the apparent instances of altruism. And it will discuss some arguments in favor of universal ethical egoism, and exam Pojman's critque of arguments for and against universal ethical egoism.
Egoism considers the best outcome for the decision maker. From an egoist perspective the most favourable outcome for the teacher to do is minimise the stress and conflict of possible outcomes in his/her life. It is therefore in the teachers’ best interest to not upset the principle, to align a similar view to her and not accept the offer of further promotion of funding.
The problem with ethical egoism is that it doesn’t match our common sense morality, this can be explained by the following: Normally, people decide which moral theory is right depending on their moral intuitions and on their ethical judgments and in return,...
Ethical egoism can be a well-debated topic about the true intention of an individual when he or she makes an ethical decision. Max Stirner brings up a very intriguing perspective in writing, The Ego and its Own, regarding ethical egoism. After reading his writing some questions are posed. For example, are human beings at the bottom? Following Wiggins and Putnam, can we rise above our egoism and truly be altruistic? And finally, if we are something, do we have the capacity to rise to a level that we can criticize and transcend our nature? These questions try to establish whether or not we are simple humans, bound to our intrinsic nature, or far more intellectually advanced than we allow ourselves to be.