...Amanda Yellen Mr. Rowe Psychological Egoism In this paper I will argue against psychological egoism. More specifically, I will argue against hedonistic psychological egoism, a popular form of psychological egoism. Hedonistic psychological egoism is the view that the ultimate motive for human action is the desire to experience pleasure or avoid pain. I will begin by contrasting psychological egoism with ethical egoism. I will then discuss arguments that support psychological egoism, and refute those arguments using Rachels’ and Feinberg’s view’s against the theory. I will conclude by arguing that psychological egoism is implausible as it is incapable of being falsified, and fails to distinguish critical terms proposed in the theory. I will begin by defining psychological egoism. Psychological egoism is the view that people always act according to their self-interest. According to this view, our only intrinsic desires are desires for the advancement of our own self-interest. But we can still have instrumental desires for other things. Instrumental desires are desires that you have only because you believe that satisfying that desire will help you satisfy some other desire. For example, I may desire to write this paper only because I believe that by writing this paper I will get a good grade, and I desire to get a good grade; I don’t intrinsically desire to write this paper. Now that I have defined psychological egoism, I will contrast the theory with ethical egoism. Psychological...
Words: 1910 - Pages: 8
...Equality, Diversity and Individual Rights in Health and Social Care Task 2: Promoting Equality, Diversity and Rights Explain how national initiatives promote anti-discriminatory practice: The Equality Act is a legislation that every private, public and voluntary organisation must follow and not discriminate against employees and people that use their services. The Act brings together any past equality laws, making them easier to follow, more effective and simpler to understand. There are nine characteristics that the equality act protects, these are age, disability, gender, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation. Everyone will fit into these categories meaning that everyone is protected by the Equality Act. This act prevents discrimination as it gives everyone equal rights without any favouritism or making it unfair by giving people more rights than others. It is also a legal framework so if people were to go against this act they would be breaking the law; it also gives any that has been discriminated against a leg to stand on as they know that they don’t have to put up with that kind of behaviour and that what the other individual is doing is against the law. Legislations, such as The Mental Capacity Act, are a group of laws that are put together by the government. If the legislation is not being followed in any way, it is classed as breaking the law. As legislations are an extremely big set of rules...
Words: 2347 - Pages: 10
...Being a Whistleblower – Advantages and Disadvantages Whistleblowers are strong and brave people, for example employees, who recognize a wrong behavior of someone or their organization and want to do something against it in order to see that this behavior, or the wrong actions taken, are corrected – for them it is a matter of ethical responsibility, and they need to do it to feel comfortable in their skin. An advantage of this behavior is that the Whistleblowers feel a deep satisfaction making a substantial contribution toward the welfare of society. Of course, personal gratification isn’t the only benefit of becoming a whistleblower. For example, in qui tam cases under the federal False Claims Act, Congress decided to give whistleblowers (or “relators”) a share of the recoveries that result from their lawsuits to encourage people to step forward and take the risks involved in reporting fraud (Qui Tam Team). An overall advantage of whistleblowing is that the welfare of customers and employees can be protected. Blowing the whistle can take a long time and therefore can be very stressful. Families, friends and especially colleagues might not understand the decision and lose patience and trust very quickly. Without someone supporting you, the time until the case has finally settled, could be a hard one. Whistle-blowers have federal protection against recrimination. Regardless, it’s very likely that you will lose your standing in your chosen profession by the insidious practice...
Words: 1008 - Pages: 5
...The argument which I am focusing on is titled “No One Knowingly Does Evil” and is written by Socrates. This argument concludes that those who do evil things do them involuntarily. According to Socrates it is not in human nature to choose to act in a way what one believes to be harmful, instead of a way that is good. He claimed that all wrong, or evil, is only done out of ignorance and not from the intention to do evil. This view appears controversial because people are known to occasionally commit deeds that are apparently evil either out of self-interest or acting on impulse, against their better judgment. It is at this point that we come to an important clarification. Socrates did not state that doing wrong to others is ever right, but that the motivation for such actions determines the character of the will involve. Socrates maintained that people are never motivated to bring harm to themselves. Since Socrates believed that wrongdoing always harmed the wrongdoer, he saw all wrongdoing as a mistake in judgment or an expression of ignorance. This is especially true in cases where a life full of wrongdoing never physically harms the wrongdoer. Socrates believed that the most pitiable of humans were those who lived under the delusion that their wrongdoing benefited them. Socrates saw no conflict between self-interest and morality. On the contrary, he saw virtue as the greatest benefit and maintained that immoral actions actually harmed the agent and could therefore only be committed...
Words: 1254 - Pages: 6
...Egoism By Jenny Taylor Philosophy P120 October 30, 2011 Egoism is “The moral view that everyone ought always to do those acts that will best serve his or her own best self-interest.” (Pojman & Fieser page87) It is contrasted with altruism, “an unselfish regard of concern for others”. 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. It will also discuss some arguments in favor of universal ethical egoism, and exam Pojman's critique of arguments for and against universal ethical egoism. Psychological egoism, a descriptive claim about human nature, states that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest. To act in one's self-interest is to act mainly for one's own good and loving what is one's own (i.e. ego, body, family, house, belongings in general). It means to give one's own interests higher priority than others'. "It (psychological egoism) claims that we cannot do other than act from self-interest motivation, so that altruism-the theory that we can and should sometimes act in favor of others' interests-is simply invalid because it's impossible" (Pojman 85). According to psychological egoists, any act no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (i.e., desire for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness). For someone who believes...
Words: 2300 - Pages: 10
...messages, but one important example in George Orwell's Shooting the Elephant shows imperialism affects the oppressed as well as the oppressor. Because it is an immoral relationship of power, it compels the oppressor to act immorally to keep up appearances that he is right. George Orwell realizes that the British Raj which he serves is "an unbreakable tyranny" (Orwell, paragraph 2) yet despises the people he oppresses for allowing him to do so. On the one hand he is regarded as a wise ruler, but on the other he knows he is wrong in what he does but must behave in such a way to disguise this. There have been many situations like this throughout history, where a person or group of people have to go against what they feel is moral, or right, in order to gain respect and/or power. I feel like it happens all too often in the world today and even throughout the past. People’s ideas about right and wrong generally reflect their own selfish interests or the interests of the group they belong to. Groups with conflicting interests often have different ideas about right and wrong, and these differences can escalate into power struggles. When the struggle for power is not restrained by laws or morals, then whichever group gains power will usually try to further its own interests at the expense of everyone else. The powerless and oppressed can try to resist, but unless they can effectively threaten those in power, then resistance is futile. Those in power will usually try to get away with...
Words: 925 - Pages: 4
...In the play “Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare, you are easily able to identify the theme of ‘political leaders usually act in the best interest of their country’ on several occasions. Shakespeare portrays this theme not only in the character Julius Caesar, but also in Marcus Brutus and Mark Antony. Although neither of them weren’t ever actually in charge of Rome, they still represent the theme well by doing what they truly believe is for the best. First, I will go into detail about how Brutus depicted the theme by leading the conspirators to do what he felt was the right thing to do. Then, I will continue on and explain how Caesar acted in the best interest of his country simply by trying to do his job. Finally, I will go further into how, even after Caesar was murdered, he still tried doing good by Rome, and...
Words: 1158 - Pages: 5
...According to him, people can perform good actions solely by good intentions without any considerations to consequences. In addition, one must follow the laws and the categorical imperative in order to act in accordance with and from duty. Several other philosophers such as Hannah Arendt discuss Kant’s moral philosophy. In her case study: “The Accused and Duties of a Law-Abiding Citizen”, Arendt examines how Adolf Eichmann’s actions conformed to Kant’s moral precepts but also how they ran of afoul to his conception of duty. In contrast, John Stuart Mill adopts a teleological view of moral philosophy. He exposes his view of consequentialism and utilitarianism to argue that an action is morally right only to the extent that it maximizes the aggregate happiness of all parties involved regardless of the motive. In the present paper, I will expose Kant’s moral precepts and the importance of duty in his Deontological principles. Then, I will evaluate Arendt’s report on Adolf Eichmann to analyze the ways in which his actions were in accordance to or against Kant’s moral philosophy. I will conclude my discussion with an evaluation of Mill’s approach to morality in order to examine the differences between his teleological philosophy and Kant’s ethical principles. Kant’s moral philosophy is based on the categorical imperative (CI), good will, and duty. According to the CI, it is an absolute necessity, a command that humans should accord with universalizable maxims to treat people as ends in themselves...
Words: 2811 - Pages: 12
...community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”. Since harm is the main criteria for establishing the limits of state regulation and the extent of personal freedom, the concept must be clearly defined. In some cases this is done very smoothly. Acts that restrict the movement of others, cause physical injury or lead to loss of property, for instance, are subject to intervention as these consequences are uncontroversial examples of harm. But not all cases are so clear-cut. Mill himself acknowledges that even purely self-regarding actions can affect others, and it is uncertain at what point affect becomes harm. For example, a person’s religious opinions and right to discuss them should be considered immune from state interference. But expression of these views may well constitute blasphemy for others and in this sense may cause harm. Mill himself distinguishes between causing offence, which does not count as harm, and inciting violence, which is harmful and should be regulated, but the distinction is far from controversial. Other questions may also be asked of Mill’s conception of harm: can a person’s character be morally harmed? Can harm be done to institutions, traditions or other forms of life? Can omission of an action which would benefit others be considered harm? Evidently not all actions that affect others should be considered harmful. There appears to be some further consideration that allows us to distinguish between actions that do, and actions that do not, break...
Words: 2309 - Pages: 10
...body parts for money is moral. I will be discussing how Utilitarianism, Kant’s Theory, and Negative Natural Rights theory determine morality and whether each theory deems the proposal as a moral act or not. The first theory we can use in deciding if selling kidneys for tuition is ethical is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism determines morality by saying an act is moral if it creates the greatest overall utility. This means it will require that we sacrifice our own pleasure and happiness for the greater good. The first step in determining the moral worth of the act is defining the utility. In this situation, financially poor student are selling their kidney to pay the tuition costs to go to school. The groups that are being affected are college students who cannot afford tuition and people who are in desperate need of a kidney. In the UK, “three people die every day in the UK while awaiting kidneys”. There is a clearly a high demand of kidneys. Since utilitarianism looks to produce the greatest overall utility, we need to measure the consequences to determine whether the positive consequences outweigh the negative consequences. The positive consequences are that poor students receive money for their kidneys so they can pay for college, and people who are in need of a kidney receive them and do not die. The negative consequences are that the student who donates a kidney will only have one instead of two, causing possible future consequences if the one kidney stops working. Another negative...
Words: 1754 - Pages: 8
...1. Psychological Egoism All forms of egoism require explication of “self-interest” (or “welfare” or “well-being”). There are two main theories. Preference or desire accounts identify self-interest with the satisfaction of one's desires. Often, and most plausibly, these desires are restricted to self-regarding desires. What makes a desire self-regarding is controversial, but there are clear cases and counter-cases: a desire for my own pleasure is self-regarding; a desire for the welfare of others is not. Objective accounts identify self-interest with the possession of states (such as virtue or knowledge) that are valued independently of whether they are desired. Hedonism, which identifies self-interest with pleasure, is either a preference or an objective account, according to whether what counts as pleasure is determined by one's desires. Psychological egoism claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare. This allows for action that fails to maximize perceived self-interest, but rules out the sort of behavior psychological egoists like to target — such as altruistic behavior or motivation by thoughts of duty alone. It allows for weakness of will, since in weakness of will cases I am still aiming at my own welfare; I am weak in that I do not act as I aim. And it allows for aiming at things other than one's welfare, such as helping others, where these things are a means to one's welfare. Psychological egoism is supported by our frequent observation of...
Words: 7005 - Pages: 29
...People have the right to secure their own safety. In order to avoid constant conflict with everyone we agree that cooperating together works in our favor and we ultimately benefit from our fair share in sacrificing liberties. Acting justly and mutually forfeiting our liberty and agreeing to cooperate in a society that secures ones right of self-preservation is rational. Justice protects us, causes less suffering, and allows us to benefit from time devoted to ourselves instead of committing injustices are all benefits of the principle of fair share. Glaucon’s notion that justice is a necessary evil is understandable in the since that it is better to live a life full of pleasure without remorse, however, justice is in fact the lesser of two evils,...
Words: 708 - Pages: 3
...involved. Ethical egoism 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 that it is rational to act in one's self-interest. Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self 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 has two flaws which...
Words: 433 - Pages: 2
...philosophy. Even though they were written approximately 1900 years apart, they represent two of the most valuable commentaries on political philosophy. They are of course, very different in their discussions of philosophy, yet some similarities are evident. Plato writes about philosophy through the mouth of Socrates, illustrating indirectly through a lengthy dialogue his own ideas and opinions. As a contrast to this method of narration, Machiavelli writes The Prince as a letter of personal advice to Lorenzo Medici. Within his work, Machiavelli makes numerous recommendations that have earned him the label of a heartless and cruel man. Plato, on the other hand, makes much of his discussion about the true nature of philosophy and the just treatment of all citizens. Despite numerous differences, Plato and Machiavelli each desire the rule of philosophers in their states, but while Plato approaches this with direct rule and education of philosopher-kings, Machiavelli appeals to manipulation and deceit in order to secure the rule of philosophers. Plato’s aim in his political state is for the greatest good of all people, through the best balancing of the natural elements on an individual and political scale. According to Plato, the human soul is comprised of the reasoning part, the spirited part and the appetites. The parallel elements within a city are the rulers, warriors and artisans. Only when these are ordered correctly will peace, justice, and long term prosperity prevail. If these...
Words: 3848 - Pages: 16
...state of war everybody against everybody, there is neither justice or injustice. I will also compare Glaucon’s and Hobbes ideas of justice. I will also discuss whether selfishness is in itself a bad thing. Hobbes imagines that humans started off living in a state of nature in which each person is free to decide for himself what he needs, what he's owed, what's respectful, right, moral, sensible, and also free to decide all of these questions for the behavior of everyone else as well. In this situation where there is no common authority to find resolution these many and serious disputes, Hobbes imagined that the state of nature could easily turn into a “state of war”. Hobbes said in describing this state "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (Rosenstand 206). Hobbes argues that the state of nature is a wretched state of war in which none of our important human ends are dependably achievable. Human nature also affords resources to escape this wretched condition. Hobbes says that once the conflict reaches a life threatening point people will do anything to preserve their own lives, “where every man is enemy to every man” (Rosenstand 206). Hobbes argues that each of us, as a rational being, can see that a war of all against all is not the best way of achieving our interests. Therefore everyone can agree that we should all act in whatever way that...
Words: 1799 - Pages: 8
