Presentation on theme: "No, not Egotism, Egoism. Egoism Read about Egoism at: Two main theses to consider regarding Egoism: Psychological."— Presentation transcript:
No, not Egotism, Egoism
Egoism Read about Egoism at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/ Two main theses to consider regarding Egoism: Psychological Egoism: Every human act is motivated solely by self-interest Ethical Egoism: Every human act ought to be motivated solely by self-interest Note that PE is descriptive, EE is prescriptive
Psychological Egoism Psychological Egoism (PE) is a premise in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan Problem: How can PE (every human act is motivated solely by self-interest) be true? Are there not altruistic people: ◦ Mother Teresa (church) ◦ Pam Anderson (PETA) ◦ Angelina Jolie (love of foreign children) ◦ Greenpeace (Earth)? Are there not principled (duty-regarding) people: ◦ Servicemen and women (country) ◦ police (society) ◦ Mom and Dad (kids)? PE recognizes both sorts of behavior, but claims both are really (deep down) motivated by selfish concerns
Psychological Egoism Altruist’s reply: When a PETA activist stands in the hot sun in a chicken suit outside McDonald’s, they’re sacrificing for others (namely, chickens) PE reply: No. The PETA activist stands in the sun to avoid feeling guilty about not helping the chickens
Psychological Egoism Dutiful folk’s reply: When a soldier falls on a grenade to save buddies, he or she is plainly motivated by concern for others PE reply: No. The soldier knows he or she would feel terrible for not sacrificing for the others, and falls on the grenade to avoid a life of guilt
Psychological Egoism Criticism 1 of PE Guilt seems to presuppose concern for others for their own sake. If it did not, why would we feel guilty for letting them suffer (PETA activist), or for letting them die (soldier)? If guilt presupposes concern for others, then concern for others is a motivating factor in human action, and PE is false.
Psychological Egoism PE reply to Criticism 1 People only feel guilt due to training or conditioning. Therefore, any concern for others that attends guilt is artificial. Does that reply work?
Psychological Egoism Criticism 2 of PE PE’s replies might fit some cases … perhaps some soldiers jump on grenades to avoid dishonor perhaps some activists skip the football game and picket KFC to avoid guilt perhaps some religious figures do good to avoid eternal punishment but why think those all soldiers, activist, religious folks are so motivated? Psychological Egoism is a Hasty Generalization
PE Reply to Criticism 2: Standing Presumption should be on PE side. We know we act selfishly very often. We don’t know we ever act altruistically. If any examples of altruism proposed are possibly selfish, that’s good evidence we are always acting selfishly, despite appearances. The Burden of Proof falls on Altruism Does that reply work?
Criticism 3 of PE Karl Popper (1902-1994) suggested that a theory is meaningful only if some conceivable test could show it was false: Falsifiability is required of any “scientific theory” Is PE a scientific theory? In the sense that it is a descriptive theory, and not a normative theory, yes (it makes a claim about how our minds work, not about how they should work). Can PE be tested? Perhaps. Psychologists try to prove infants are hardwired for altruism. Those studies, though, are inconclusive to date. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5765/1301.abstract
Desperation Reply of PE: Look, we’re going around and around! Just think about it … those examples of altruistic behavior you like? They must be selfish deep down because, after all, the agent wanted to do those things. And if anything you do you must want to do, that’s egoism!
Reply to Desperation Reply of PE: No, no … that’s Trivial Egoism! Of course, every action we choose to perform is an action we “want” to perform, but that only means perhaps 1% of a person’s motivation is self-interested. It is possible the other 99% of motivation is concern for others (people, animals, … any non-self things). What PE must hold to avoid the label “trivial,” is that all human acts are motivated 100% by self-interest.
Predominant Egoism? If the psychological egoist rejects the trivial version of PE, and gives up proving motivation is 100% selfish then PE has lost … the alternative that follows from that admission, Predominant Egoism, is philosophically uninteresting There is nothing surprising or enlightening about most motives being selfish There are no interesting consequences for ethics
Conclusion for PE: If training or conditioning is responsible for other- regarding desires or concerns, does that immediately show PE is false, or is there something to the idea that such are artificial? Does the mere existence of such other-regarding desires, who cares where they came from, invalidate PE?
Ethical Egoism Ethical Egoism (EE) says every human act ought always be motivated solely by self-interest. If PE were true, would Ethical Egoism (EE) even be possible? EE: we always ought to act selfishly. But if PE is true, we psychologically must act that way. Can we have an obligation to act in a way we must act? That seems crazy.
Ethical Egoism 4 Reasons to Accept Ethical Egoism 1) Strongest possible connection between acting morally and acting rationally. 2) EE, for Ayn Rand, Friedrich Nietzsche, others, focuses on the indignity of being subservient to others. 3) Acting selfishly makes for a better world; altruism creates dependency. 4) Ethical Egoism does not really differ in content much from Standard Moral Theories (SMT)—Mill, Kant, Aristotle
Ethical Egoism Reason 1: Strongest possible connection between acting morally and acting rationally? a) Standard moral theories often have an uphill battle getting folks to act on the theory’s principles as the principles are cast in terms of limiting freedom. For instance, generally: b) Morality consists in striking the right balance between Duty and Interest. (Many Ethics texts are titled “Duty and Interest.”) c) It would be convenient if all duties were really in our interest due to a lack of obligation to be concerned about others.
Ethical Egoism Reason 2: (SMT are insulting) skip Reason 3: (altruism creates moochers) skip Think about them yourself; do they make sense to you? Are reasons 2 and 3 epistemic reasons (reasons to think EE is true), or practical reasons (reasons to accept it, live by it)?
Ethical Egoism Reason 4 is defended with “The Cooperation Defense” Far-sighted selfishness leads us to be kind, generous, friendly, forgiving, etc.—to cooperate with others— and so EE is basically the same as conventional morality or SMTs. Ask yourself, on Ethical Egoist grounds, 1. What reason do I have to give to the homeless person at the stop light? 2. Why will I not cheat on my spouse? 3. Etc.
Criticism of Ethical Egoism A failing of the cooperation defense: You are rowing a boat to safety after your cruise ship sank and a desperate man a few yards off is calling for help. There are no other survivors, the man has no chance without you, and you have no interest in saving him. EE suggests you have no duty to save the man since any such duty would have to be grounded in your having a reason to act, and, as we’re supposing, you have no interest in saving the man. Could an ethical theory be correct and permit such an action to count as permissible?
Criticism of Ethical Egoism EE is often criticized for failing to account for the common moral values of friendship (concern for an intimate other for her own sake) sensitivity (concern for other’s feelings for their own sake) good-will (concern for a stranger for his own sake) because of its view that we never ought to have concern for others for their own sake, but only ever as a means to our own pleasure or advantage. Can a moral theory count as a moral theory at all, rejecting those classic moral phenomena?
Mother Teresa: http://www.excerptsofinri.com/mother-teresa.htmlhttp://www.excerptsofinri.com/mother-teresa.html Greenpeace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace US Soldier: http://www.mikepaulblog.com/blog/media/us%20soldier%20in%20iraq.jpghttp://www.mikepaulblog.com/blog/media/us%20soldier%20in%20iraq.jpg Chicken suit: http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/peta-presses-mcdonalds-for-less-cruel-chicken-processinghttp://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/peta-presses-mcdonalds-for-less-cruel-chicken-processing Soldiers in a foxhole: http://warart.archives.govt.nz/node/1022http://warart.archives.govt.nz/node/1022 Karl Popper: http://www.utilitarianism.com/karl-popper.jpghttp://www.utilitarianism.com/karl-popper.jpg Ayn Rand: http://www.nndb.com/people/097/000030007/ayn-rand-wtl_big.jpghttp://www.nndb.com/people/097/000030007/ayn-rand-wtl_big.jpg Fredrick Nietzsche: http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/images/philosophers/friedrich-nietzsche.jpghttp://www.philosophyprofessor.com/images/philosophers/friedrich-nietzsche.jpg Cruise ship: http://www.greatdreams.com/greek-ship-sea-diamond.jpghttp://www.greatdreams.com/greek-ship-sea-diamond.jpg