Psychological Egoism
If you're not sure what "psychological egoism" means, make sure you get it
straight before you do anything else on this topic.
"Egoism" is being only out for yourself, with no care for anyone else.
An "egoist" is some one who is only out for himself, with no care for
anyone else.
An egoist will let a billion children die in agony if there's nothing in
it for him.
"Psychological Egoism" says that _everyone_ is an egoist.
A "psychological egoist" is some one who _believes_ that
everyone is an egoist.
A psychological egoist believes that _you_ will let a billion
children die in agony if there's nothing in it for you.
"Moral Egoism" says that everyone _should_ be egoists.
A "moral egoist" is some one who _believes_ that everyone should
be egoists.
A moral egoist believes that you _should_ let a billion children
die in agony if there's nothing in it for you.
"Interest"
means wealth and power. It's money and other resources, and whatever
seems to the individual to lead to money and other resources. It's not hobbies or other "things a person is interested in." It's wealth and power, and whatever leads to weath and power.
Do not change these definitions.
Read this page, and then do your best to answer the question given in bold
type below.
Do the defenders of psychological egoism give us logically compelling reason
to think that no-one ever chooses to something that is not in
his own best interests
A good way to get started is to try to write down this compelling reason.
If you think there is a compelling reason, you will be able to write this
reason out in a coherent paragraph that consists of more than
repeating the definition of psychological egoism in different words, or
illustrating the doctrine with examples of people you think are really
acting in their own self-interest. A compelling reason will begin with facts,
will not make assumptions, and will not make excuses.
If you can't do more than reiterate your belief in psychological egoism,
then there is no compelling reason, and you should answer this question
with a resounding "no!"
The Box Rule
If you think that there is a compelling reason to think that psychological
reason is true, you must write out that reason at the beginning of your
paper and draw a box around the reason. Here's an example:
This box is empty because I can't think of anything to
put into it that isn't just a statement of psychological egoism in
different words. If you do write something in a box on your paper, you
should ask yourself two questions:
1. Is there any logical difference between what I've written in
this box and the simple statement that psychological egoism is true? Or
have I just stated psychological egoism in different words?
2. Can I prove everything I've written in this box?
Things You Shouldn't Do
Please don't tell me that psychological egoism is sometimes
true. That's like saying that two plus two is sometimes seven.
Psychological egoism is either true or false. If someone ever chooses to
act against his own best interest, then psychological egoism is false, no
matter what anybody else does at any time. So don't write that
psychological egoism is true or false depending on circumstances, or
viewpoint, or phase of the moon. Psychological egoism says people always
act in their own best interest. That's always. If
there's even one exception, psychological egoism is false.
Please don't tell me that psychological egoism is true because, whatever
you do you always get some satisfaction out of it. That's like saying
people always maximize their own physical
effort because whatever you do it will always involve some
physical effort, so a couch potato maximises his physical effort as much a
bodybuilder or an ultrarunner. Physcological egoism doesn't say
"people always get something out of whatever they do," it says "people always
act to get the most possible personal
gain out of whatever they do." There's a huge difference.
Please don't tell me there are two kinds of egoism. There is only one kind
of egoism. There are several _doctrines_ about egoism, but they're all
taking about the same thing. (The doctrine I want you to think about here
is the one that says people are always completely
egoistic.)
Psychological Egoism is the doctrine that everyone always acts, or tries
to act, in her own self-interest, where self-interest is defined
differently from "whatever she decides to do." (If my self-interest is
defined as whatever I decide to do, then psychological egoism just says
"everyone always acts, or tries to act, in the way she decides to act,"
which is the same as saying "everyone always tries to do whatever she's
trying to do at that moment." Duh.)
If anyone ever acts in a way that is not in her own
self-interest, then psychological 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. (None of Ellen's family has any money
or influence, so there is absolutely no possibility that Ellen will
derive any future benefit from this activity.)
Situation 2: Ellen spends Saturday mornings hanging out with friends. This
disturbs Ellen's mother, but doesn't bother Ellen at all.
In fact she has loads of fun and feels great the whole week. She
notices and regrets her mother's unhappiness, but it doesn't bring
Ellen down very much much at all, especially since the unhappiness felt
by Ellen's mother is much, much, much les onerous than the misery that
Ellen would feel if she consorted with her horrible relatives.
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.
If psychological egoism is true, Ellen could 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.
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, psychological egoism still says that Ellen will necessarily
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, psychological egoism still says that Ellen will necessarily
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. Remember, situation 1 ALWAYS serves Ellen's self
interest LESS than situation 2, so psychological egoism says Ellen could
NOT possibly EVER choose situation 1.
Even if it was true that Ellen got some satisfaction out of
situation 1, that wouldn't mean that situstion 1 serves her self
interest, so if you think that Ellen might ever
chose situation 1, you think psychological egoism is false.
The question is, do the defenders of psychological egoism give us
compelling
reason to think that no-one ever chooses to something that
is not in their own best interests. This is because if
anyone ever choose an option that is not absolutely the best
option for her, then she is giving up some
self-interest, and so psychological egoism is false.
It is important to remember that merely stating that
psychological egoism is true does not constitute an argument for
psychological egoism, even if you restate psychological egoism in
any number of different ways.
Remember that egoism is different from Psychological
Egoism. Egoism is when some person puts his own interests over
the interests of others some time, or when some person
is only out for himself. Psychological Egoism is the doctrine that everyone
is always like that. Egoism clearly exists because we know that
some people are purely selfish sometimes. Psychological egoism
only "exists" in the sense that belief in fairies exists. We know that
psychological egoism exists because we have the concept. The question is
whether that concept is true or false.
Remember that assuming something is not the
same as proving it. Saying "people by nature act in
self-interest, so we are all egoists" is not an argument for PE because
it's just two statements of PE joined together by the word "so".
If all you can do is repeat PE over and over again in different
words, you should conclude that nobody has any argument for PE, and that,
since PE bears the burden of proof, this means PE is false.
Also remember that satisfaction is not the same as interest, and
gratification is not the same as interest. If you think they are the same,
you have to prove it. You can't just say "he served his own self interest
because he got some satisfaction," you have to prove that satisfaction is
interest, and that this bit of satisfaction served his interests more
than all he gave up.
For hints about the logical consequences of failing to find a compelling
argument for psychological egoism, see burden.htm
You may add any other comments or questions you happen to think of.
And remember, psychological egoism is either true or false. It can't be
sometimes true. If it's ever false, it's always false. So if you say it's
sometimes true, I'll give you zero points for that stage.
Copyright © 2012 by Martin C. Young
This Site is Proudly Hosted
By:
