Sunday, April 15, 2012

Ethical egoism

Ethical egoism (also called simply egoism)[1] is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds merely that it is rational to act in one's self-interest. Contractual egoism acknowledges the interdependence of self-interests through voluntary, freely chosen exchanges. These doctrines may, though, be combined with ethical egoism.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help and serve others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self (also known as the subject) with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and "the self" to a status not granted to others), but that one also should not (as altruism does) sacrifice one's own interests to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective), but utilitarianism is called agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial) as it does not treat the subject's (i.e. the self's, i.e. the moral "agent's") own interests as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others.
Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others. Individualism allows for others' interest and well-being to be disregarded or not, as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the agent. Nor does ethical egoism necessarily entail that, in pursuing self-interest, one ought always to do what one wants to do; e.g. in the long term, the fulfillment of short-term desires may prove detrimental to the self. Fleeting pleasure, then, takes a back seat to protracted eudaimonia. In the words of James Rachels, "Ethical egoism [...] endorses selfishness, but it doesn't endorse foolishness."[2]
Ethical egoism is sometimes the philosophical basis for support of libertarianism or individualist anarchism, although these can also be based on altruistic motivations.[3] These are political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action.
Three different formulations of ethical egoism have been identified: individual, personal and universal. An individual ethical egoist would hold that all people should do whatever benefits them; a personal ethical egoist would hold that he or she should act in his or her own self-interest, but would make no claims about what anyone else ought to do; a universal ethical egoist would argue that everyone should act in ways that are in their own interest.
According to Deepak Patidars, a philosophy holding that one should be honest, just, benevolent etc., because those virtues serve one's self-interest is egoistic; one holding that one should practice those virtues for reasons other than self-interest is not egoistic.
The terms "egoism" and "egotism" may refer to:
 egotism, an excessive or exaggerated sense of self-importance
 ethical egoism, the doctrine that holds that individuals ought to do what is in their self-interest
 psychological egoism, the doctrine that holds that individuals are always motivated by self-interest
 rational egoism, the belief that it is rational to act in one's self-interest
 solipsism (sometimes called egoism), the belief that only one's self exists, or that only the experiences of one's self can be verified
 Egoist anarchism, a form of anarchism, as most often represented by Max Stirner
 egocentrism, inability to "put oneself in other peoples' shoes"
[Altruism, selfless concern for the welfare of others
 Selfishness, denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern
 Selfism, refers to any philosophy, doctrine, or tendency that upholds explicitly selfish principles as being desirable. It is usually used pejoratively
 Individualism, a focus on the individual as opposed to society
 Individualist anarchism, anarchism that exalts the supremacy of the individual
 Machiavellianism, a tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain
 Objectivism (Ayn Rand), a philosophical system based on the writings of Ayn Rand that advocates egoism
 Satanism, a philosophy based on individualism and self-preservation
 Post-egoism, a philosophy aiming beyond egoism
 Suitheism, Belief in self as a deity
Who is an Egoistic Person?
 A little bit of narcissism results in social success and overall happiness and is therefore a good characteristic. A bit more of narcissism results in more social success and gets a person to climb the career ladder. A lot more of narcissism results in success but also gets the person to be extremely sensitive to critics and sarcasm, and can therefore never be truly happy.
 An egoistic person can never be happy nor can he/she make his/her partner happy and will always expect perfection from his/her children.
 Self centered and close minded people are all over the place. These people often misinterpret whatever you say into something that they think goes against them and their religion/country/race. No matter how you explain, they will not listen and continue to “champion” their point/cause. These people like to believe that everything they think/do/say is right even when it is very wrong. You can try to reason out with them but they would only get angry and hold on to any shards of the same point that you have already broken.
 These people never ask or check if their interpretation of the matter is correct. They just do what they think is right and what makes them happy. It is funny how they consider that whatever they say or do is always correct and that everyone else is always wrong. They just don't seem to understand that someone else can have a different point of view. They think they have the best and most absolute point of view. Points and views can only be tested by discussion with someone else. Until you see both ways completely.
 Egoistic people can be of any age, race or religion. No specifics. But one thing they all have in common is their holier-than-thou attitude and getting defensive when someone challenges their views. They are everywhere..............

I. The distinction between psychological egoism and ethical egoism reflects the contrast of "is" verses "ought," "fact" verses "value," or "descriptive" verses "prescriptive."
A. Psychological egoism is the empirical doctrine that the determining motive of every voluntary action is a desire for one's own welfare. On this view, even though all actions are regarded as self-interested actions, the egoist readily points out that people usually try to conceal the determining motives for their actions because such concealment is usually in their self-interest.
1. Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory resulting from observations from human behavior. As such, it can only be a true empirical theory if there are no exceptions. In science, a purported law only needs one disconfirming instance to disprove it.
2. Psychological egoism makes no claim as to how one should act. That all persons seek their self-interest on this theory is a purported fact, and this belief is viewed by the psychological egoist as nonmoral and verifiable.
B. Ethical egoism is the normative or prescriptive doctrine that each individual should seek as an end only that individual's own welfare. The idea here is that an individual's own welfare is the only thing that is ultimately valuable for that individual.
1. Ethical egoism does not claim that all persons, in fact, seek their own self-interest; ethical egoism only claims that we should or ought seek our self-interest, even though all persons might not do so.
2. If ethical egoism is to be regarded as a theory, it must be universalized to hold for all persons.
II. By way of clarification of relevant terms, James Rachels, among others, points out common confusion concerning selfishness and self-interest.
A. Actions in self-interest are not necessarily selfish actions. For example, it is in your self-interest to obey the law, to exercise, and to enroll in college, but no one would claim that it is selfish for you to do so.
B. Actions in self-interest and actions for the interest of others are not exclusive categories of action. That is, it is false that every action is done from either self-interest or other-regarding motives. Some people smoke or eat too much, and these actions are not clearly in either category of actions.
C. Actions in self-interest are not necessarily incompatible with the interest of others. For example, it is in your self-interest for everyone to be happy (cf., Adam Smith's "unseen hand"). If you are to help others, you must first be in a position to do so. I.e., in many instances, you have to help yourself first to obtain the knowledge of how to help others.
III. The Refutation of Psychological Egoism: arguments to the conclusion that the generalization everyone acts from the motive of self-interest is false.
A. Psychological egoism as an empirical theory commits the fallacy ofhasty generalization or converse accident. The descriptive psychological law that all persons act from the motive of self-interest is false because there are many disconfirming instances.
1. Many people have injurious habits such as smoking, worrying, or self-defeating behavior.
2. Many people do their duty when their self-interest lies elsewhere. Many people will help someone in need without thinking of self-gain. Many people will follow religious precepts without personal benefit.
3. Many people will react in such a manner that their action is done for the "heck of it." I.e., some actions are performed precisely because they are not in our self-interest. We "cut off our nose to spite our face." Dostoevsky writes, "And what is it so happens that a man's advantage, sometimes, not only may, but even must, consist in his desiring in certain cases what is harmful to himself and not advantageous.
4. Some people will act against their self-interest so that they can follow their conscience. They do what's right even though they won't personally benefit.
5. Almost everyone will act against their short-term self-interest in order to obtain a greater long-term self interest. Students will stay up all night to get a term paper done even though the short-term effects are disadvantageous (loss of sleep, lack of attention in class, altered circadian cycle, and so forth).
B. If psychological egoism is claimed to have no disconfirming instances from the definition of the term, then the generalization turns out to be a tautology or trivially true statement.
1. By the way psychological egoism is defined; all possible counter-examples have been ruled out. This marks the theory meaningless. Suppose a soldier falls on a grenade to save his buddies. The psychological egoist would say the action can be said to be in the interest of the soldier because he could not live with himself if he did sacrifice his own life or he did so because he would go out as a hero and so forth. No matter what action is set forth as an exception to the generalization, we can always rationalize that the action was a self-interested one.
2. Hence, because there is no empirical test to confirm an action not in self-interest, the claim is empty of factual content. The class "self-interested actions" is extensionally isomorphic with the class of actions. In other word, the claim that all actions are self-interested actions (i.e., the claim of psychological egoism) is logically equivalent to the claim that "All actions are actions."
3. Since any possible counter-example is assimilated to "self-interested actions" (even self-defeating behaviors) the claim of the psychological egoist is trivial and meaningless. For "self-interested actions" to be a meaningful class of actions, we would have to know what kind of actions isn't self-interested.
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.")
A. In the most selfish act we can always rationalize an altruistic motive.E.g., littering can be viewed as done as a public service in order to help unskilled workers keep their jobs.
B. Pari passu with psychological egoism, if we can't find the altruistic motive in all actions, it is claimed we just haven't thought deeply enough.
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)"

No comments:

Post a Comment