Philosophy 2030 Class #9 4/7/16        Next week (4/12/14):         Be sure you have read Chapter Five, pp. 231-232, 240-262         Portfolio Assignment #4   Take-home / open book midterm exam will be available for class on 4/14 and will be due on 4/19.

Student Portfolio: Assignment #4 Myself or Others? 1) Find an excerpt from a TV show, carton, or a short video, etc. illustrating someone acting selfishly or out of their own self-interest. Evaluate how their behavior affects others. Would it really be reasonable for them to argue that their behavior was for the benefit of others or would that just seem only an excuse. Discuss your view of the matter in 1-2 paragraphs. 2) Find an artifact also illustrating someone appearing to act for the benefit of another and, if possible, someone claiming that the act was self-interested (like the Friends video) What would it take to convince the cynic or critic that the action was selfless, if anything. Discuss your view of the matter in 1-2 paragraphs.  

Upcoming Schedule: 4/12/16: Utilitarianism (Chapter 5). 4/14/16: Midterm Exam Available. 4/19/16: Midterm Exam Due. 4/21/16: Kant’s Deontology (Chapter 6) 4/28/16: Kant’s Deontology, Pt. II, Contemporary Perspectives (Chapter 10)   & Student Portfolio Due. 5/5/16:  Personhood, Rights, and  Justice (Chapter 7) 5/12/16: Applied Ethics: A Sampler (Chapter 13) & Class Essay Due.   5/19/16: Summary & Review 5/24/16: Final Exam

Extra credit opportunity: Visit the Zen Buddhist  temple at 10 AM on April 14th.     Nebraska Zen Center 3625 Lafayette Ave. Omaha, NE 68131

Egoism: Looking Out for #1 Egoism can be a factual or a normative position. Psychological egoism, the most famous descriptive position, claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare. Normative forms of egoism make claims about what one ought to do, rather than describe what one does do. Ethical egoism claims that it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be morally right that it maximize one's self-interest.

An Argument for Ethical Egoism Looking Out for #1 An Argument for Ethical Egoism P1: Psychological Egoism (factual) P2: “Ought implies Can.” (normative) That is, one should not try to do what one cannot do. Or “One does not have a moral obligation to perform and act unless it is possible to do it.”

Egoism: Looking Out for #1 Self-interest can be understood in different ways. Perhaps self-interest is simply maximizing pleasure. This is the hedonist view. Perhaps self-interest recognizes complex conduct or patterns of conduct over periods of time are required for ultimate self-interest. But what about the act of a soldier who risks his own life to save his buddies? Is he just being a fool? Or is he displaying altruism?

Egoism: Looking Out for #1 If everyone is just out for themselves anyway, is the egoist not more selfish but just more honest about it? Is there a difference between self-interest and selfishness? Is an egoist the same as an egotist? Actually, perhaps selfishness is the opposite of true self-interest. That is, it is just ignorance that is mistaking your long-term interests for short-term pleasures or impulses?

Egoism: Looking Out for #1 Some ethical egoists argue that you should do what you want. Others would argue that you should do what is good for you. The Egoist appears to contradict the Golden Rule. Is the Egoist suggesting that it is right to do harm to others “if you can get away with it?”

Shared belief in the "Golden Rule“ (Ethics of Reciprocity) “Each person should treat others in a decent manner.” “Almost all religious and secular groups have passages in their holy texts, or writings of their leaders, which promote this Ethic of Reciprocity.” http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm.

But Is the Golden Rule Always Right? George Bernard Shaw wrote: "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different." Baseball or opera tickets? But perhaps "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common.

Glaucon & the Ring of Gyges Glaucon asks: “If you had a ring that would give you invisibility or anonymity to “get away” with anything, would not a wise person use it to further his self-interest?“ Glaucon suggests that man only acts in the interest of others only for self-protection (social contract theory) How do Socrates (or Plato) reply? What about Aristotle?

Egoism: Looking Out for #1 Please note that Socrates and Plato also would argue that you should do what is good for you. In the Republic, Plato makes clear that happiness comes from a balance between the three parts of the soul. That is, one achieves the good by being virtuous. Aristotle of course likewise in his Golden Mean argues that happiness is a result of being virtuous. Thus, with these philosophers, there is no “sacrifice” of the self to become virtuous. Their problem with Egoism is rather that one cannot achieve what is good or virtuous for oneself by pursuing self-interest for its own sake.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) Thomas Hobbes agreed with Glaucon on all three points: Humans by their nature are self-interested. Humans choose to live in society with rules that inhibit themselves for their own protection. Not looking after yourself is foolish. How does Hobbes explain the apparent altruistic acts? He points out that we can identify with other’s pain and suffering. (pity)

A Problem for the Ethical Egoist 1. The Egoist seems to be suggesting that ethical egoism does ultimately benefit everyone and that harming others without a greater creation of good for yourself does not truly promote your self-interest? But if so, is this really an argument for egoism anymore, or is it an argument for the greater good for all (community)?