Free Essay

Egoism

In:

Submitted By barrigam
Words 2043
Pages 9
Fifty To have morals generally means as having a set of values or principles. These values, good or bad are most commonly instilled in us from infancy and usually evolve as we become older and make life choices. Perhaps we can say it’s the foundation of good values in people that bring out their decent and moral conduct. At least that’s what I believe. I would have never imagined that during my vacation, I’d end up shipwrecked out in the middle of the Caribbean Ocean and my sole existence would depend on three individuals aboard that cruise ship that were so different. I say this because prior to the shipwreck I got to socially interact with the other passengers who were on the cruise with me. It’s those three men that are now making all the decisions for one hundred and seventy four other passengers, crewmembers and myself, although very intelligent and equally portray a common sense type of character, have a set of totally different ethical beliefs. The theorist with the divine command type of personality preached daily about “doing what God wants us to do” and how it’s important for parents to raise their children with a strong religious background if we want them to find eternal life with God. Don’t get me wrong, its not that I think he’s wrong or disagree, I just believe that my vacation time involves a lot of RR and I certainly don’t want to be discussing such personal matters with complete strangers. Now, the second gentleman whom I call the “relativist” seems like he has a good head on his shoulders. He’s very personable, courteous, and seems to be a very rational human being. He’s not critical of anyone, minds his own business and has been extremely tolerable with the divine command theorist and the conversations he has basically imposed on him with his beliefs. He’s a neutral type of guy that really wishes to be left alone to enjoy his wonderful vacation. His idea of the whole thing is that “it should be up to each individual to decide, we are no one to force ideas unto others least of all our children”. However, this type of attitude is really upsetting the theorist I exhibit as being a selfish and self centered character. This egotist only values his talents and achievements and most likely reacts on impulse. He probably doesn’t have many friends. Now, this individual scares me. To think that my life is in the hands of someone who will act only on his own interests makes me think that I don’t have a fighting chance for survival. Nevertheless, I’m amongst all these passengers and crew members that are scared, hungry and tired that somehow need to survive this life threatening situation. It’s going to be interesting to see how each of these men will react to try and save us without anyone dying in the process. If you haven’t already, can you imagine or take a wild guess as to who will be guiding us first? The egotist has come forward requesting that he be the first to tell us what the correct course of action will be, the divine command theorist has not volunteered but has offered to help if the egotist fails and last but not least the relativist has worked out the dilemma and although he has developed a plan there’s no way the egotist is going to let him go first.

The life boat is jam-packed like a can of sardines. There are young and old women and men and children ranging from ages 5 to 12 years of age. It’s obvious that the life boat is not going to withstand the excess weight so the egotist needs to think fast. Sitting next to me is an old woman who looks about seventyish. She has countless wrinkles along her cheekbones and mouth, as if she smiled a lot or was a very happy individual throughout her life. The children are crying and scared. Some orphaned by the disaster and others clutching to a loved one like a security blanket. The men are confused and have begun to panic. The persons in the water are yelling out for help and begging for mercy. I’m looking out at the scattered bodies of persons floating in the water and thinking how insignificant we are compared to the ocean. We are helpless. It’s funny, were taught that the earth is three quarters of water and until now, I never really gave that statement much thought. In the midst of my deep thoughts, the egotist stands and tells everyone on the lifeboat that the boat will only sustain fifty people, more than that will make the boat sink. On the boat there are 75 persons so, it’s obvious that 25 need to get off. The divine command theorist tells him “you cannot just throw people off the boat into the water they will die!” The egotist responds and tells him “that if they don’t get off, then everyone will die because of them”. Suddenly, there is an overwhelming feeling of panic and anxiety coming from the people. It’s clear that not one person by their own free will, will jump in the water. The egotist begins to get angry and tells the people that if they don’t get off, he will start pushing them off. People are yelling out in anger, the children’s cry’s become louder, the boat is rocking uncontrollably, when suddenly the divine command theorist and another young man fall into the water. Taking advantage, the egotist begins pushing those people at his arms length off the boat and into the water. The relativist stops him and tells him “that he is going about it the wrong way, you are not thinking straight”! The egotist manages to push nine people around him off the boat, bringing the total to 64 on the boat. I’m sitting on the west end of the lifeboat making sure I don’t make any eye contact with anyone, keeping to myself and very scared to be selected or thrown off the boat. The divine command theorist tells those floating in the water to swim toward the life boat and to make sure to stay close. “We need to depend on each other now”, he tells everyone. The egotist has abandoned all logic and his instability in the crisis is evident. He reiterates his threat to start pushing people off the boat if they don’t get off by their own free will. Suddenly, the old woman sitting next to me speaks out and says “why don’t you get off the boat?” The egotist becomes infuriated at the old woman’s remark and demands that she get the hell off the boat or he will push her off. The old woman tells him, that she will not jump by her own free will; he will need to push her off. The egotist makes his way to the west end of the boat the people start yelling, attempting to stop him from committing the most despicable action known to mankind, murder. Now, I can’t explain it in detail how it happened because my eyes were closed more than they were open; but the old woman was thrown off the boat and with her went the egotist. She must of held on to him during the struggle or someone took advantage of the situation and pushed them both off the boat. I hated to see the old woman go but, there was nothing I could do. I couldn’t say the same for the egotist. He was now in the water, with the divine command theorist and one hundred and twelve other people. The divine command theorist has not become hopeless or disappointed under any circumstances. His firm faith in God, who is the Master of all the treasures of the earth and the heavens, and whose grace and bounty have no limits and whose powers are infinite, make him strong and encourages everyone in the water and on the life boat to be strong and have hope. The egotist has failed at his plan and the divine command theorist is in the water that leaves the relativist to implement his thought out plan. The relativist takes a stand and begins to tell everyone that they must remain calm and optimistic. He has a plan that he would like to introduce to everyone; that if they agree and follow it thru accordingly, they may have a fifty percent chance for survival. He asks that the people floating in the water come closer to the life boat so that everyone can hear his plan and participate in the opportunity for survival. He begins by telling those in the water that in order to travel at a faster pace, they must form a chain with the leader holding on to the boat. They must keep their legs moving, similar to a propeller. The egotist yells out to the relativist, “what about the sharks!” The relativist doesn’t answer. The divine command theorist tells him “if it God’s will that you die, than you shall”. The relativist continues to relay his plan by telling those on the boat that all persons except the egotist will have an opportunity to be on the boat. The egotist will remain in the water at all times. The alternating will be continuous with only fifty people on the lifeboat. His plan was encouraging and suddenly the terror of dying seemed less devastating to me. The divine command theorist told everyone that it was a good plan and that everyone should make an effort if they wanted to survive. He told everyone “have faith in and dependence on, God”. “He will never leave us”. “Believe in him, he will make us strong with determination, patience and perseverance”. For two days the people alternated, with fifty people on the life boat resting and the remainder in the water. The children were the only ones that remained on the boat the entire time. The egotist expressed his dissatisfaction constantly. He bashed everyone aggressively, accentuating the relativist because it was his decision to leave him in the water. Then the bashing stopped. We noticed that he wasn’t paddling at the end of the chain. He was gone. In the days to follow, I must say I began to miss the egotist. He had a way of getting people upset which in turn made us fight harder for our lives. He voiced his opinions and repeatedly reminded us that we would not survive. I don’t know for sure how long the alternating rhythm lasted nor can I say for sure who survived the shipwreck. My state of mind declined with each day that passed and I stopped counting at day seven. The divine command theorist, the egotist and relativist each had their own theories of how to help us survive. The egotist only thought about saving himself without feeling guilty or apologetic; basically losing all respect for himself as well as others and ended up dying sooner than expected. The divine command theorist, with his strong belief in God, helped everyone willingly and accepted God’s plans for him whether it be to live or die.

The relativist with his tolerant and prudent character carried out a plan that didn’t save everyone but gave everyone a fighting chance for survival. I can say, that without the divine command theorist and his words of hope and faith, I would not have had the opportunity to reflect on my past and reconcile with God. I thank the relativist, for his intelligence, optimistic and fair behavior towards everyone. My ethical approach to this matter would have been to be fair and honest just like him. To give everyone the opportunity to make their own decision right or wrong without being judgmental or offensive. Let’s face it, if it wasn’t for the relativist, I don’t think I would have survived for as long as I did.

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Psychological Egoism

...Psychological egoism is the view that people are always selfish. When was the last time you did a good deed? Did you do it for its own sake, or for your own? The egoist says that all of us are necessarily self-regarding. I shall argue that this view is incorrect. First we should ask, what kind of claim is this? Is it an a priori claim, or a generalization from experience? If it were the latter, we could never conclusively prove it: we could never show that necessarily all actions are selfish. So it must be a priori. But no a priori claim could be substantive: a priori truths are all analytic (that is, the predicate is contained in the subject). So if this claim were analytic, it would become trivial. (It is worth noting that Kripke’s claim that there are a posteriori necessary truths does not show that a priori truths are not analytic.) The situation is paralleled by pseudo-sciences such as Freudian psychoanalysis. As Karl Popper has argued, any theory can be maintained so long as it is drained of empirical content. Like psychoanalysis, psychological egoism makes no genuine claims and can never be refuted. But it purchases certainty at the price of becoming vacuous. I shall have more to say on this below. The simplest way to see the egoist’s mistake is to distinguish between the side-effects of an action and the reason for which it was done. Suppose we grant that in doing a good deed, we usually get a pleasant feeling (though I suspect this is false). ...

Words: 617 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Egoism

...PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOSIM & ETHICAL EGOISM There are many different ways to interpret psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Both of this theories have been studied, both have people supporting them as well as rejecting them. Psychological egoism states that whatever you do is for the soul purpose of self-gain no matter what the cost. Ethical egoism in definition is you doing things with the purpose of self-gain but not going farther than the social moral standard to accomplish those goals. I will show how psychological egoism and ethical egoism are false by showing how people sometimes do things because they just feel like doing them, and not all actions have a hidden meaning behind them. Psychological egoism is the theory that claims that anything you do, no matter what it is, is motivated by self-interest. That your motivation is influenced by your desires. That all of our actions even if they may appear to be altruistic, they must have a selfish motive behind it. Even with evidence of altruistic acts from today or in the past, believers of this theory will tell you that those actions can be traced back to acts of selfishness and not for the well-being of others. Last Sunday, while listening to the priest give his explanation of the Gospel, he narrated how once Mother Theresa found this malnourished young child in the streets. She noticed that there was a bakery nearby and walked to the bakery along with the child. Once in...

Words: 1438 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

Psychological Egoism

...Faith Holloway Dr Justin Sytsma PHIL 105 May 5 2014 Critical Analysis of Psychological Egoism Psychological egoism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2010), entails that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare. This essay will explore the meaning of psychological egoism, how arguments can be justifiably presented and why this theory is commonly appealing to philosophers. Often supporters of psychological egoism will present arguments through theories such as Darwinism and Desire Satisfaction. This essay essentially aims to critically assess the substantiality of these arguments. In order to correctly assess the arguments in favour of psychological egoism, firstly it must be stated what is implied by these arguments. Psychological egoism has many differences to other egoist theories such as ethical egoism, which state we should be selfish. Psychological egoism however states that all human actions are uncontrollably selfish, and that this is part of our human nature. It should be noted before continuing that this essay will be assessing this more radical form of psychological egoism , which identifies that ‘selfishness is’ the only way one can possibly performs actions, disregarding any consideration of others unless this aids their selfish action in some way. Psychological egoism can seem plausible to its supporters for a variety of reasons. Some of the most common include the concept that desires are entirely our own and therefore pursuing...

Words: 2289 - Pages: 10

Premium Essay

Psychological vs Ethical Egoism

...Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism: A Comparison Abstract There is a certain innate desire to help others, just as others will feel that same fulfillment for returning that aid. At the same time, however, there is also an inherent yearning to seek out one’s own best interest. This brings about a discussion regarding the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. To understand the similarities and differences, one must first understand the two concepts including their natures, as well as their doctrines of motivation. Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism: A Comparison Human beings place great value on the interests of both themselves and others. There is a certain innate desire to help others, just as others will feel that same fulfillment for returning that aid. At the same time, however, there is also an inherent yearning to seek out one’s own best interest. That being said, which is the more natural desire, and which of these will prevail when a decision must be made between self-interest, and the interest of others? This brings about a discussion regarding the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Philosophers as far back as Plato and Socrates – and likely further – have been pondering over these notions which remain just as relevant today. To understand the similarities and differences, one must first understand the two concepts including their natures, as well as their doctrines of motivation...

Words: 1157 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Psychological Egoism

...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 egoism and ethical...

Words: 1910 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

Psychological Egoism

...Psychological egoism is the view that everyone always acts selfishly. It describes human nature as being wholly self-centered and self-motivated. Psychological egoism is different from ethical egoism in their “direction of fit” to the world. Psychological ego-ism is a factual theory. It aims to fit the world. In the world is not how psychological ego-ism says it is because someone acts unselfishly, then something is wrong with psycho-logical egoism. In my opinion this argument is completely wrong and unsound. According to James Rachel, an author of “Elements of Moral Philosophy,” there two main arguments exist against psychological egoism. The first argument can be formulated as such: 1) Everyone always does what they most want to do. 2) If everyone always does what they most want to do, they act selfishly 3) Everyone always acts selfishly. Opponents claim that psychological egoism renders ethics useless. There two cri-ticisms of this argument. First criticism is on premise one: “It is not the case that everyone always does what they most want to do because sometimes people do what they are obligated to do. They are either forced to do it because someone makes them or they do it because they seek the end result of it, such as a visit to the dentist entails.” (J. Rachels p. 70) In his book “Elements of Moral Philosophy” Rachel gives great examples to support this criti-cism: “the soldier who falls on the grenade to save his buddies, the person who runs into the busy...

Words: 652 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Ethical Egoism

...Ethical Egoism Ethical egoism is a normative theory based on the promotion of one’s own good in accordance with morality (Moseley). Shaver avers that based on the ethical egoism theory it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be morally right and that it maximizes one's self-interest. The promotion and pursuance of one’s self-interest underscores the normative theory. It prescribes the motivation of one’s thought, behaviour, and action. To fully understand the ethical egoism theory we must first know certain principles behind it. Ethical egoism is a normative theory, which means it prescribes how we should think, behave, and act. Three different formulations of ethical egoism have been identified: individual, personal and universal. Individual ethical egoism is the prescriptive doctrine that all persons should serve self-interest. Personal ethical egoism is the belief that one should act from the motive of self-interest. Universal ethical egoism is the universal doctrine that all persons should pursue their own interests exclusively (Shaver). A theory of ethics is said to be coherent if it is founded in truth, consistent and complete. ‘In truth’ means that a statement of action is either true or false and not both. Consistency means that there should be no contradictions or incompatible statements. Completeness means that there should be no moral truth, which is not provable from the basic moral principles of the theory (Moseley). Shaver’s...

Words: 1015 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Ethical Egoism

...Ethical Egoism We will be discussing the strengths and weaknesses of ethical egoism, but before we begin we first must understand what ethical egoism is and what is 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...

Words: 433 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Egoism and Utilitarianism

...To Treat or Not To Treat To treat or not to treat, that is the question? What would you do? How does the subject of cancer treatment apply to the moral theories of Egoism and Utilitarianism? Which theory best addresses this problem? I would assert Egoism best handles the dilemmas undressed by this ethical scenario. Egoism is a normative ethical theory that contends we act morally when in any given situation the right thing to do will be whatever maximally promotes long term self-interest. It does not describe how people behave; rather, it describes how people "ought" to behave. (Class notes February 23) This is a key element of all normative theories. Another key element of egoism lies in “long term”. Simply stated, an ethical egoist would typically not endorse running up credit card debt. While it might fulfill one's interests in the moment, it would undermine one's long term self-interest. James Rachels says it best; "Ethical egoism endorses selfishness, but it doesn't endorse foolishness.” Rachels also suggests each of us possess the ability to know what is in our own best interest, therefore to attempt to provide charity to another would directly disregard that ability. In essences, to give a man a fish would suggest they do not have the same ability you possess to acquire their own fish. Based on principles outlined by James Rachels and others, Thomas Hobbes may be viewed to be an ethical egoist, although he argued that if everyone follows their own long term...

Words: 1145 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Phi445 W1D1 Psychological Egoism

...jobs in America and transferring them to foreign countries. The impact was negative for our economy, better for a foreign economy, and best for the leaders of said businesses (Wessel, 2011). A solution to this scenario would be to bring at least the majority of the jobs back to America and take a slight blow to the overall profit, in order to decrease the odds of our own economy collapsing. Then again, psychological egoism runs rampant amongst those in charge and damaging profit for the overall well-being of the economy is out of the question right now. Psychological egoism has a small place in my own body of ethics and values. I do tend to be selfish when dealing directly with selfish people. So regardless of the circumstances I just may do some nice things and act certain ways to ensure that my own motives are met first and foremost. I generally don’t surround myself with people like that however, and genuinely try to lean more towards helping others regardless even when there are no benefits for me ( psychological altruism). The theory of psychological egoism almost seems to be the core of the current company I’m employed with. Some examples include...

Words: 392 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Arguments Against Psychological Egoism

...While many ethicists critically contend for the question relating to whether or not the psychological egoism is correct principle for describing how the people perform their actions today, it is important to understand what is psychological egoism and find out some ethical evidences to prove the fact no matter it is right or wrong. In this essay, I will firstly present the definition of psychological egoism with illustration and then present three main arguments against its being true from the Feinberg’s points of view by giving the strong evidences supporting them. Firstly, according to the theory, “the psychological egoism is the name given to a theory widely held by ordinary people implying that all human actions when properly understood can be seen to be motivated by selfish desire.” (Feinberg, 489). In the other words, the basic idea in the psychological egoism is that the human nature is totally selfish...

Words: 898 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Egoism In Ayn Rand's Anthem

...whether or not the word is good or evil, lots of people across the world have preached there voice on the matter. However today we are here to focused on these main points. What an egoist is and if it’s good or bad. As well as to discuss and analyze whether or not our main character in Anthem, equality 7-2521 also known as Prometheus at the end of our story is one of them. Equality 7-2521 declares the word ego to be holy at the end of anthem, but is he true fully an egoist and is this a good thing or a bad thing? To start things off we must first understand what the word ego means and what an egoist is. The word ego in literal terms means I from the Latin language. Now the word egoist has a bit of a different meaning, this is a noun from egoism. An egoist is a person who thinks and or believes that oneself comes before all. Now it does not necessarily make it a bad thing by any means but as there are with most things it has pros and cons. So in terms of good things there is giving humans their personal freedom and upholding the human doctrine. However by giving the their personal freedom you also giving them the right to have deadly sins as some say, such as greed and when greed is involved things can get very ugly. You know things such as war can start. People having their individual ideals has lead to multiple wars. In the end I can not really say if it is good or bad. Too much of it can lead to greed and other horrible things like war but if there is none of it then we lose...

Words: 867 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

The Idea Of Egoism In Ayn Rand's Anthem

...Egoists are often thought of as being full of themselves or believing that the world revolves around them, but is that really the case? In the novel, Anthem, by Ayn Rand, the main character demonstrates egoism as being a healthy amount of self-confidence and individualism. He shows that egoism is not negative, rather it should be encouraged. Egoism provides us with individualism and with individualism, we gain a reason to live. We realize that the have a role on the Earth and that we are a human being with rights and a chance to make a difference. The narrator in Anthem shows a perfect example of egoism and the reason why egoism is not something to be ashamed of. I believe that in the novel, Anthem, the main character, Prometheus, is an egoist....

Words: 632 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Utilitarianism, Ethical Egoism, and Moral Relativism

...Utilitarianism, Ethical Egoism, and Moral Relativism Tom Gardner Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to answer the questions; what’s right? What’s wrong? And why? Moral relativism is an ethics position that essentially states that people have disagreeing moral beliefs and therefore you must but tolerant of other's morals. This position leads to the problematic realization that if this is the case there can be no objective moral truths nor can there be any universal principles. Act utilitarianism and ethical egoism are two different ethics theories that attempt to respond to this challenge of moral relativism in different ways. Ethical egoism attempts to respond to the challenge of moral relativism by justifying that there is a universal principle for what actions are right and what are wrong. It is a form of consequentialism, which means it looks solely at the consequences of action to see if it is right or wrong. The defining sentence of egoism is as follows, “What's good for you is right and what's bad for you is wrong.” This phrase can be interpreted in a number of ways, the most popular one being: every person should act in their own self-interest. This means that when deciding on whether an action is good, any effect on others (mental or physical) by said action has no merit. An egoist that is measuring or justifying an action's goodness is only examining the possible positive or negative effects this action will have on him. The majority of the justification...

Words: 1382 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Feinberg's Argument Against Psychological Egoism Hedonism

...In his paper, Moral Motivation and Human Nature: Psychological Egoism, Feinberg argues against psychological egoism hedonism by showing that it is paradoxical. Furthermore he shows that this means that arguments for this position are also false. This paper looks to reconstruct this argument, and show the implications of it. Feinberg is arguing against psychological egoism hedonism, which states that humans only act to obtain one’s own pleasure, and hence happiness. Psychological egoism hedonism can be argued for since teaching morality requires incentivising good behaviour with pleasures, and disincentives bad behaviour with pain. Hence, this shows that people act morally as a means to gain pleasure, and thus presupposes Hedonism. Feinberg...

Words: 410 - Pages: 2