Psychological Egoism

 Hobbes and Glaucon were both what Rachel’s calls psychological egoists (64).
 They both thought that is was human nature to be selfish—that the only thing that truly
motivates us to act is that we see so acting as good for us or in our interest.
 So, although we often seem to do selfless or altruistic things.
 Ultimately, we do these things only because they are what we really want to do or
because it is what brings us the most pleasure.
 Thus Hobbes believed, for example, that people feel pity for others in distress
only because they fear the same may happen to themselves.
 We do not really sympathize with them or feel unhappy about their misfortune, though
we may believe this is what we are feeling and tell ourselves that is why we are
motivated to help those we pity.
 But really, we help those in need primarily in order to quell the self-directed fear their
suffering evokes.
 If it was pity that motivated us to help others, then we would be just as inclined to help
strangers and people we see as deserving of their misfortune as everyone else.
 But we only identify with those close to us and with those we see as similar to us.

Did Glaucon’s story about the Ring of Gyges convince you that psychological
egoism?

Did his juxtaposition of the just man who was mistaken for treacherous man and
the treacherous man who was clever enough to keep up a façade of justice
persuade you?

 Hobbes and Glaucon both defended the view that there really was no intrinsic
reason to be a good and moral person.
 It is not really in our nature to be good for its own sake.
 Rather, we act good because of its extrinsic benefits.
 We know there were be consequences for failing to fall in line with social expectations.
 This has led some to conclude that only good reason to act morally is if it is in you’re
your own interests.
 This view is sometimes call Individual Relativism, but more commonly called Ethical
Egoism.

Relativism
 Before we get to the main topic of today’s lecture—ethical egoism—we should
discuss relativism more generally as well as the varieties of moral relativism in
particular.
 Relativism is the thesis that the “truth” about something (whether it is about
moral values, aesthetic beauty, knowledge, textual interpretation, etc.) can
only be determined relative to a particular framework or standpoint (IEP).
 So, for example, a relativist about interpretation might think that the correct or true
meaning of Dostoyevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov, is relative to the individual
reader.
 Relativism is thus a denial of objectivism, the thesis that the truth about
something is independent of any particular framework or standpoint.
 Thus, it would not be up to the individual to construct a meaning or interpretation for
the novel.
 Rather it already has a more or less correct interpretation which the individual must
discover or re-construct.
 Thus, relative truths are truths that we construct or invent within a given context,
whereas objective truths are truths that can only be discovered.
 Objective truths exist “outside” of any particular context and so do not depend on the
opinion, feeling, or preference of any individual.
 An important implication of relativism is that no particular point of view about
the subject can be privileged above any other.
 Thus, Dostoyevsky may have intended for his work to have a particular meaning or to be
interpreted in a particular way, but once his ideas are expressed on paper, he no longer
has any authority to say what the text means.
 Anyone’s interpretation—whether he is the author, a professor of Russian literature, or
you or me—is as good or as correct as anyone else’s.
 That is, if interpretation is in fact relative to the individual reader.

Ethical Egoism
Is morality a completely personal or private?
Is it wrong to push your moral values on others?
Do you think each person has a moral duty only to look out for themselves?

 According to ethical egoism (EE) we have a moral duty to do only what is in our
own interest (77).
 This is different from psychological egoism.
 The latter is a descriptive thesis about how people are in fact motivated.
 It says that it is human nature to be motivated to do only what is in our own interest.
 EE is a normative thesis about how people ought to be motivated.
 EE could be true even if psychological egoism is false.
 Even if we can be motivated by the interests of others, it still might be true that we are
under no moral obligation to do so.
 The supreme moral principle according to ethical egoism is to be selfish (78)
  You are under no obligation to help others.
 This is not to say you are under an obligation not to help them.
 As long as helping others doesn’t conflict with your own interests, helping others is
morally permissible.
 Nor does EE morally require us to pursue as much pleasure as possible.
 That would be a form of ethical hedonism.
 Rather, EE requires us to do what is in our interest, even when it is sometimes not
pleasurable.

Group work: Rachels discusses 3 arguments for ethical egoism and 3 objections
against it. In every case (except the final objection) he raises some problems for
the argument. I want you to break into 5 groups of around 4 people each. I will
assign you either an argument, an objection, or one of the responses. Your goal is
to understand it well enough in your small group to be able to explain it to the
class. Break the argument down into a syllogism and then understand how the
responses are supposed to undermine the truth or soundness of premises or the
validity of its conclusion. Sometimes Rachels has already outlined the argument
for you. Try to put it in your own words, simplifying it where possible.

1. Altruism is self-defeating (79-80)

2. Rand’s argument from the value of the individual (80-
2)
3. EE best explains commonsense moral obligations (82-
4)

4. EE obligates immoral actions (85)

 Rachels discusses this objection in passing, but does not
formalize it.
 I still want you to focus on it rather than argument that EE
is contradictory.
5. EE cannot handle moral conflicts (85-6)
6. EE is unacceptable arbitrary (88-90)
Three Arguments for Ethical Egoism
1. Altruism is self-defeating
P1. We ought to do whatever will best promote everyone’s interests.
P2. Altruism does not best promote everyone’s interests.
C. Therefore, EE is true: we ought to promote only our own interests.
 The second premise has been defended in a number of different ways, each
with the consequence that being an altruist is self-defeating.
 For example, we know what is in our own interest better than what is in the interest of
others.
 So, if we try to prioritize the interests of others we will likely do a worse job than they
could do for themselves.
 At the very least we will be “butting in” in or otherwise interfering with their own
attempts to do what is best for them.
 We also risk degrading them by denying the opportunity to help themselves.
 We rob them of their dignity by treating them like children.
 The central problem with this argument is its reliance on the first premise.
 What grounds can the EE offer us for accepting it?
 They might claim that promoting everyone’s interests will make for a better society.
 But the EE cannot tell us why that matters, since it is fundamentally altruistic aim.

2. Rand’s argument from the value of the individual

P1. Each of our individual lives has immense value, which we ought to respect.
P2. Altruism prevents us from respecting the value of our own lives.
C. So, we ought to accept EE.
 The key premise in Rand’s argument is the claim that in sacrificing for others,
we necessarily diminish the value of our own lives.
 But is this really always the case? Is every act of altruism an act of self-sacrifice or self-
violence?
 And why can’t we treat both of our interests and the interests of others as important to
us?
 Why do we have to choose all selfishness or all sacrifice?
 If we don’t have to, then P2 is false and the conclusion fails to follow.

3. Ethical Egoism explains commonsense morality

P1. We ought to adopt whatever moral theory best explains our commonsense
obligations.
P2. The best explanation for why we have commonsense obligations to others is
that these keeping obligations is always ultimately in our interest.
C. We ought to adopt EE.
 In this argument, ethical egoism is offered as a way of best explaining why it is
that we think we have certain obligations, e.g., not to lie, or harm, or break our
promises.
 In each case, we stand the best chance of promoting our own interests, as a matter of
fact, if we promote the interests of others.
 If we keep our promises to others, others are more likely to keep their promises and to
trust us.
 If we don’t harm others are less likely to harm us and we stand a better chance of
staying out of prison.
 So, as Hobbes quipped, we should do unto others so that they are more likely to do unto
us.
 One problem with this argument is that it does not prove enough.
 Ethical egoism is the claim we always ought to act in our own interest.
 But, while it is often in our interest to promote the interests of others, it is not always in
our interest to do so.
 So the second premise is false.
 Consequently, ethical egoism would prescribe lying and harm whenever our interests
are not hurt by doing so.
 Yet, commonsense morality does not seem to allow for these exceptions.
 Another problem is that commonsense morality is not best explained as
deriving from a concern with self-interest.
 When we think about why we are motivated to prevent harm—e.g., to offer food to
starving people—we have their interests primarily in mind.
 Thus, it is not the case that the most basic reason or explanation for our helping hem is
that it is to our advantage.
 So, the purported explanatory benefit of adopting EE is mistaken.

3 Objections to Ethical Egoism

1. The argument from wicked consequences
P1. We shouldn’t adopt any moral theory that entails we are obligated to lie, steal,
and harm.
P2. EE entails we have some wicked obligations.
C. So, we should reject EE.
 As long as we can avoid being caught, many immoral actions will be in our self-
interest.
 This seems like a valid objection to EE.
 Yet the ethical egoist could rightly point out that it begs the question.
 It assumes that there is something wrong about lying and stealing to begin with.
  It assumes, in other words a nonegoist or altruistic conception of what is wicked
already.
 It says, in effect, don’t be unaltruistic because being unaltruistic is wrong.
 But whether altruism is right or wrong is the very question at issue, for the ethical
egoist.

2. The argument from unresolvable moral conflicts

P1. We shouldn’t adopt any moral theory that entails we are obligated to lie, steal,
and harm.
P2. EE entails we have some wicked obligations.
C. So, we should reject EE.

P1. Moral theories should help us resolve moral conflicts.

P2. Our individual moral interests often conflict with one another.
P3. EE cannot tell us which interests are more important or, rather, it tells each of
us that our own interests are more important, thus leaving us with an
unresolvable conflict.
C. So, we should reject EE.

 Implicit in premise one is the claim that moral theories should help us resolve
conflicts in a way that considers everyone’s interests together.
 The assumption is that we need to create some sort of group harmony with our moral
theory.
 But the ethical egoist is going to reject this way of viewing the aim of our moral theories.
 It already satisfies the practical aim by telling each invidiaual what they ought to do.
 The ethical egoist accepts that life is competition and struggle among individuals.
 And that this is a good thing or at least not bad.

3. The argument from arbitrariness

P1. Any moral distinction made without a morally relevant difference is arbitrary.
P2. EE tells us to prefer our own interests to those of others.
P3. But there are no morally relevant differences between anyone’s interests
C. So it follows that we should reject EE.

Evaluating subjectivism
Does this do a good job of explaining the nature of morality?
How well does this theory accomplish the practical aim of a moral theory?
 Subjectivism, as a philosophical theory offers little guidance in moral
dilemmas.
 Basically, what we need, in order to determine what is right or
wrong in a given situation, is a clinical psychologist.
 We need someone to help us figure out what we really feel, or, if we want
to feel differently, someone who can help us change and manipulate our
intuitive moral attitudes.
But is that how we normally confront moral dilemmas: Are we just trying to figure
out how we feel?
 Moral dilemmas often seem like more than conflicts between
feelings.
 If this is true, then subjectivism doesn’t do a very good job Aren’t they
conflicts between judgments about how we ought to feel?
 Thus, while moral feelings should play and important role in our
understanding of moral judgments.
 They not should not be all there is to our moral judgments.
 Otherwise, the vast majority of our moral ideas and practices make no
sense.
 We need to make room for principled conflict.
 Subjectivism makes it difficult to distinguish between saints and
psychopaths.
 We think Mother Theresa is a saint for living according to her most deeply
held moral convictions.
 But, with this theory, it’s not clear what makes her different from
psychopaths, i.e., those whose feelings differ radically from our own.
 After all, Hitler also lived according to his most deeply held moral
convictions.
 If subjectivism is true, there is no independent fact of the matter about
who is the better person.
 You and I may agree that Mother Theresa was a morally superior person,
but that’s just because we happen to share the same feelings.