bollocks<>

(If you are in IME 4020, this is a topic for Dr. Young's side of the class.)

For this task you should deeply logically analyze this topic as described in the following prompt, and, when you have done that, only then write up a proper (minumum three page) Thesis Paper fully describing, clarifying, supporting, and defending what you presently think is the most logically supportable conclusion we can come to about this topic.(Three pages, double spaced, odf, .doc. .docx, .pdf, submit through Turnitin.com.)

Remember that a thesis paper starts with your thesis, and does not have an introduction or a conclusion.

Moral Egoism

Prompt: Do the defenders of moral egoism give us compelling reason to think that no-one should ever choose to something that is not in their own best interests. This is because if someone ever should choose an option that is not absolutely the best option for her, then she should be giving up some self-interest, and so moral egoism is false.

Think about whether or not anyone has come up with a reason to think moral egoism is true. Read one or more articles with arguments for moral egoism (like Hettingern, Mount Union, or Ben Eggleston) and see if anyone there has a logically compelling argument supporting moral egoism. If they have, write a paper clearly and completely explaining that argument, and defending it from any criticisms you can find or think of. If they don't, write a paper clearly and completely explaining that argument, and explaining why it's not a good argument.

Moral Egoism is the doctrine that everyone should always act, or try to act, in her own self-interest. (This is very different from psychological egoism, which makes the weird claim that, somehow, magically, everyone already always acts in their own self-interest. You should not write about psychological egoism in this paper. It is not relevant to this issue.)

Please note that "self-interest" is defined differently from "whatever a person decides to do." (If my self-interest is defined as whatever I decide to do, then moral egoism says "everyone should always act, or try to act, in the way she decides to act," which is the same as saying "everyone should always try to do whatever she's trying to do at that moment." Which is weird and rather dull.)

If anyone ever should act in a way that is not in her own self-interest, then moral egoism is false.

Consider Ellen, who has the power to ignore the feelings of others. Specifically, Ellen can ignore the feelings of her mother and other relatives. Ellen has the choice between two situations.

Situation 1: Ellen spends Saturday mornings with her relatives. This makes Ellen's mother happy because of her deep commitment to family ties, but it makes Ellen miserable because her relatives cannot stop passive-aggressively harassing her. No matter what Ellen does, she can not manage to get through these gatherings with any pleasure whatsoever, and only manages to feel good again when the memory of that morning fades later in the week.

Situation 2: Ellen spends Saturday mornings hanging out with friends. This disturbs Ellen's mother deeply, but doesn't bother Ellen at all. In fact she has loads of fun and feels great the whole week! She notices her mother's unhappiness, but it doesn't bring her down, and with a little effort, she can ignore it. She has absolutely no bad feelings about not seeing her mother. Please don't think that she does.

For the purposes of this question, these are Ellen's only choices.

Please note that you do NOT get to change the situation. You do NOT get to pretend that Ellen gets pleasure, satisfaction, relief, or anything else out of spending Saturday mornings with her relatives. Ellen gets a lot of pain and absolutely no pleasure from this situation.

Seriously, I'm getting tired of reading papers that tell me that Ellen will be somehow better off if she visits her relatives. She won't, and don't say that she will if you want a good grade for this paper. "Answering" the prompt this way is like answering "what is six to the power of seven" with "six plus seven is thirteen." It's a complete waste of time.

Also note that you do NOT get to change the definition of moral egoism. You do NOT get to pretend that moral egoism says to always act on your feelings, or to always act on your impulses, or to always act on immediate short-term self interest, or to do stupid self destructive things. Moral egoism just says to always act on your own overall long-term best interest. If an action isn't actually your best option all things considered, then moral egoism DOESN'T say that's what you should do.

I absolutely don't want to see any papers "arguing" that "action A is in Ellen's self interest, so ME says Ellen should do A, but A is not in Ellen's self interest, so ME tells Ellen to do something that's not in her self-interest." Remember that ME says always act in your own self-interest, so if you find out that something isn't in someone's self interest, you have discovered that moral egoism does not tell that person to do that thing.

So, if moral egoism is true, Ellen should never choose situation one because it is not in her best interest in any way whatsoever. If she decides to spend her Saturday mornings with her relatives she is knowingly choosing to give up a lot of pleasure for a lot of pain. Moral egoism says she would be morally wrong to do this.

Notice that we can change the situation in some ways without altering this conclusion. If we make situation 2 better than it is, and make the mall less fun, moral egoism still says that Ellen should choose situation 2 so long as situation 1 is even slightly worse than situation 2. In fact, even if Saturday with the relatives is pretty good, moral egoism still says that Ellen absolutely should choose situation 2 so long as the mall is even slightly more fun overall. This is because situation 1 is still less in her interest than situation 2, and so choosing it means giving up some self-interest.

Or consider Ralph, who has the power to of self-deception. Whatever the situation, Ralph can fool himself into thinking that he is not responsible for any bad consequences of his own actions. Imagine that you are drowning, and Ralph has the power to rescue you by leaning over and pushing a button that will lower a rope ladder into the water in the place where you are currently struggling to survive. However, Ralph has a bad back, and you are dirt poor, and cannot reward Ralph in any way that would matter to him. Saving your life would cause Ralph to hurt his back, which is against his interests, and would not benefit Ralph in any way. If moral egoism is correct, Ralph should not save your life. Do you agree with this?

Sometimes, moral egoists argue that if we all exclusively focus on our own individual self-interests without ever sacrificing anything to benefit anyone else, everyone will be better off. To examine this argument, consider Cappy Talist, who owns vast resources and secretly controls the government and brutal police apparatus of the Confederate Shambles of 'Murica. Cappy lives a life of absolute luxury which he enjoys tremendously, while the vast majority of Muricans live lives of poverty, sickness, suffering and early death. Given the efficiency of this police state, the only person with any real ability to change things is Talist who could, by carefully instructing his tame politicians, easily arrange for taxes to be raised on the rich and lifted on the poor, for wages to be raised and rents to be lowered, and many other things that would improve the lives of the poor. This would astronomically increase the amount of utility in the world by making millions of extremely miserable lives into extremely happy ones, and it would cost Talist virtually nothing. However, it would cost Talist something. His life would become slightly less fabulously wealthy, and, because he resents even a tiny diminuation of his lifestyle, he would from then on, always enjoy his life a little less than if he had not helped everyone else. Given the possibiliity of cases like these, is it really true that utilitarianism implies moral egoism?

Do the defenders of moral egoism give us compelling reason to think that no-one should ever choose to something that is not in their own best interests. This is because if someone ever should choose an option that is not absolutely the best option for her, then she should be giving up some self-interest, and so moral egoism is false.

Again, you do NOT get to change the situation. You are being asked a very specific question. Answer exactly that question

For hints about the logical consequences of failing to find a compelling argument for moral egoism, see burden.htm

Moral Egoism

Further Reading

Articles With Arguments For Moral Egoism

Articles With Arguments Against Moral Egoism

Idiot Fans Of Ayn Rand Failing to Think Logically About Ethical Egoism