ETHICS MIDTERM
Chapter 5 Ethical Egoism
Summary and Important points
The achievement of his own happiness is mans highest moral purpose.
Ayn Rand, THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS (1961)
Ethical Egoism - each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively. This is the
morality of selfishness. It holds that our only duty is to do what is best for ourselves. Other
people matter only insofar as they can benefit us.
Common sense might tell us to balance our own interests against the interests of others. The
commonsense assumption is that other peoples interests count, from a moral point of view. But one
persons common sense is another persons nave platitude.
Psychological Egoism - by contrast, asserts that each person does in fact pursue his or her own
self-interest exclusively. Thus, these theories are very different. It is one thing to say that people
are self-interested and that our neighbors will not give to charity.
Comparison between the two?
Psychological Egoism makes a claim about human nature, or about the way things are; Ethical Egoism
makes a claim about morality, or about the way things should be.
Psychological Egoism is not a theory of ethics; rather, it is a theory of human psychology. But ethicists
have always worried about it. If Psychological Egoism were true, then moral philosophy itself would
seem pointless. After all, if people are going to behave selfishly no matter what, then whats the point of
discussing what they ought to do?
Points of Psychological Egoism
According to Psychological Egoism, we may believe ourselves to be noble and self-sacrificing, but that is
only an illusion. In reality, we care only for ourselves. Could this theory be true?
Altruism prioritizing the happiness of others more than your needs/self-interest.
Arguments that support Psychological Egoism
The Argument That We Always Do What We Want to Do.
Carnegie thought of desire as the key to human psychology. Thus, when we describe one persons action
as altruistic and another persons action as self-interested, we may be overlooking the fact that in each
case the person is merely doing what he or she most wants to do.
Flaws of this argument
This argument, however, is flawed. There are things that we do, not because we want to, but because we
feel that we ought to. The argument has a second flaw. Suppose we concede that we always act on our
strongest desires. Even if this were so, it would not follow that Wallenberg acted out of self-interest. For if
Wallenberg wanted to help others, even at great risk to himself, then that is precisely what makes his
behavior contrary to Psychological Egoism. The mere fact that you act on your own desires does not
mean that you are looking out for yourself.
The Argument That We Always Do What Makes Us Feel Good.
The second argument for Psychological Egoism appeals to the fact that so-called altruistic actions
produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the person who performs them.
In this story, Honest Abe employs a time-honored tactic of Psychological Egoism: the strategy of
reinterpreting motive. Everyone knows that people sometimes seem to act altruistically; but if we look
deeper, we may find that something else is going on. And usually it is not hard to discover that the
unselfish behavior is actually connected to some benefit for the person who does it. Thus, Lincoln talks
about the peace of mind he got from rescuing the pigs.
Flaws of this argument
Lincolns argument is badly flawed. It may be true that one of Lincolns motives in saving the pigs was to
preserve his own peace of mind. But the fact that Lincoln had a self-interested motive doesnt mean that
he didnt have benevolent motives as well. In fact, Lincolns desire to help the pigs might have been even
greater than his desire to preserve his peace of mind.
Our desire to help others often comes first; the good feelings we may get are merely a by-product.
Conclusion about Psychological Egoism. If Psychological Egoism is so implausible, why have so many
intelligent people been attracted to it? Some people like the theorys cynical view of human nature. Others
may like its simplicity. And, indeed, it would be pleasing if a single factor could explain all human
behavior. But human beings seem to be too complicated for that. Psychological Egoism is not a credible
theory.
Arguments for Ethical Egoism (3)
Ethical Egoism, again, is the doctrine that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest
exclusively. Ethical Egoism is the radical idea that the principle of self-interest accounts for all of ones
obligations.
The Argument That Altruism Is Self-Defeating
If we want to do what is best for people, we should not adopt so-called altruistic policies. On the contrary,
if each person looks after his or her own interests, everyone will be better off. The argument concludes
that we should adopt certain policies of behavior, and on the surface, they appear to be egoistic policies.
However, the reason we should adopt those policies is decidedly unegoistic. It is said that adopting those
policies will promote the betterment of societybut according to Ethical Egoism, that is not something
we should care about. The argument says:
(1) We ought to do whatever will best promote everyones interests.
(2) The best way to promote everyones interests is for each of us to pursue our own interests exclusively.
(3) Therefore, each of us should pursue our own interests exclusively.
If we accept this reasoning, then we are not Ethical Egoists.
Ayn Rands Argument. Ayn Rand (19051982) is not read much by philosophers.
Altruism, to her way of thinking, leads to a denial of the value of the individual. It says to a person: Your
life is merely something to be sacrificed. If a man accepts the ethics of altruism, she writes, his first
concern is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it. Those who promote the ethics of altruism are
beneath contemptthey are parasites who, rather than working to build and sustain their own lives, leech
off those who do.
Problems with Ethical Egoism
One problem with this argument, as you may have noticed, is that it assumes we have only two options:
Either we accept the ethics of altruism, or we accept Ethical Egoism. The choice is then made to look
obvious by depicting the ethics of altruism as an insane doctrine that only an idiot would accept. The
ethics of altruism is said to be the view that ones own interests have no value and that one must be ready
to sacrifice oneself totally whenever anybody asks it. If this is the alternative, then any other view,
including Ethical Egoism, will look good by comparison.
Ethical Egoism as Compatible with Commonsense Morality
Thomas Hobbes (15881679) suggested that the principle of Ethical Egoism leads to nothing less than the
Golden Rule: We should do unto others because if we do, others will be more likely to do unto us.
Arguments against Ethical Egoism (3)
The Argument That Ethical Egoism Endorses Wickedness
The Argument That Ethical Egoism Is Logically Inconsistent
The Argument That Ethical Egoism Is Unacceptably Arbitrary
In short, what makes me so special? Failing an answer, it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary
doctrine, in the same way that racism is arbitrary. Both doctrines violate the Principle of Equal Treatment.
Our morality must recognize the needs of others. And that is why, ultimately, Ethical Egoism fails as a
moral theory.
Chapter 6 Social Contract Theory
Wherever law ends, tyranny begins . . . John Locke, THE SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT
(1690)
The Social Contract Theory explains the purpose of both morality and government. The purpose of
morality is to make social living possible; the purpose of government is to enforce vital moral rules. We
can summarize the social contract conception of morality as follows: Morality consists in the set of
rules, governing behavior that rational people will accept, on the condition that others accept them
as well. And rational people will accept a rule only if they can expect to gain from it. Thus, morality is
about mutual benefit; you and I are morally bound to follow a rule only if we would be better off living in
a society in which that rule were usually followed.
Difficulties for the Theory
First, it is said that the Social Contract Theory is based on a historical fiction.
The second objection is more troubling. Some individuals cannot benefit us. Thus, according to the Social
Contract Theory, these individuals have no claim on us, and we may ignore their interests when were
writing up the rules of society. The moral rules will therefore let us treat these individuals in any way
whatsoever. This implication of the theory is unacceptable.
The Social Contract Theory is grounded in self-interest and reciprocity; thus, it seems unable to recognize
the moral duties we have to individuals who cannot benefit us.
Chapter 7 The Utilitarian Approach
The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.
Jeremy Bentham, COLLECTED WORKS (1843)
Basic Principle
Principle of Utility. This principle requires us, in all circumstances, to produce the most happiness that we
can.
Proponents
Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick
The creed which accepts . . . the Greatest Happiness Principle . . . holds that actions are right . . . as they
tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.
John Stuart Mill, UTILITARIANISM (1861)
Man does not strive after happiness; only the Englishman does that.
Friedrich Nietzsche, TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS (1889)
