We Are Not Always Selfish

SITE MAP

HOME PAGE

QUIZZES
TESTS

FAQ
LINKS
SEARCH
READINGS
ARCHIVES
SYLLABUS

Philosophy 102: Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry
Rachels, "Humans Are Not Always Selfish"

When we think of ethics, one of the first things we think of is our duty to help others and not thinks so much of ourselves.

In fact, a large measure of effort is spent in growing up to resist the natural instinct to act in our own self-interest without first thinking of the other person.
Yet, there is another side to ethics also. We have the right, and many say the duty, to make ourselves the best that we can be--i.e., to realize our potential.
Often, we would like to help others, but because of lack of self-development, we are unable to do so. We have to help ourselves first in order to be in a position to help others. This is a reason why many persons go to college. How much help would a person be able to give in the Peace Corps, if that person did not know the language and customs of the country and basic information about nutrition, health, and construction?

1. Distinguish psychological egoism from ethical egoism.

Psychological egoism: the doctrine that everyone acts from the motive of self-interest. Occasionally, the doctrine is initially defined in terms of selfishness or doing what one wants.

1. This doctrine is a descriptive generalization of "what is" apart from what ought to be.

2. It's a descriptive generalization, much like a law in social science. For example, on this view, if I find a wallet and I keep the money, I do so from self-interest. Nevertheless, if I find a wallet and I return the money, I also do so from self-interest (because in the second case, my sense of honor or honesty is worth more to me than the money in the wallet).
Ethical egoism: the doctrine that everyone ought to act from the motive of self-interest.

1. This doctrine is a prescriptive generalization as to what "ought" to be, rather than what "is."

2. Consider the difference between the descriptive law of gravity (which we cannot choose to disobey) and the prescriptive law of a speed limit (which we can choose to disobey).

2. What are Rachel's arguments against the view that all acts are done for self-interest?

Rachels argues that sometimes people ordinarily do what they do not what to do. For example ...
Actions which are means to an end--going to college in order to get a good job, working to get a paycheck, going to the dentist, exercising, and so forth.
Actions which are a result of an obligation or a duty--keeping promises, studying, staying in good health, and so forth.
Certainly as part of the answer to this question, we would have to include the answers to questions 3 and 4: what "selfishness" is and how that differs from "self-interest."

3. If one derives satisfaction from helping others, does it make one selfish? Why or why not?

We can't say that every act is selfish since it is done by an agent because this descriptive generalization would make "act" and "selfish act" extensionally isomorphic.

1. The word "selfish" would lose all meaning because there would be, by definition, no act that is not selfish. The descriptive law would not be empirical; the law would be a tautology.

2. Consider the baby who calls everything a duck. If the word "duck" stands for anything, we would say that he did not know what the word meant.
Following the maxim, then, "when in difficulty, make a distinction," we can distinguish between "selfishness" and "non-selfishness" by looking at the object of the want in the action of an individual.

1. If I want something for myself, the action is selfish.

2. If I want something for someone else, then even if it gives me pleasure, the act is not selfish.
After all, as Rachels writes, isn't the unselfish person precisely the one who derives satisfaction from helping others? The selfish person would be the one who helps grudgingly.

4. What are three common confusions about psychological egoism?

Common Confusions	Explanation
1. The confusion of selfishness with self-interest.	If we can find action that is one of these and not the other, these are distinct concepts: coming to class, buying a car, brushing your teeth, and so on.
2. Confusion that every action is done from either (1) self-interest or (2) other regarding motives.	That is, there are many actions that are done from neither motive: e.g., drinking, doing an action for the sake of the action, duty, watching TV, and so on.
3. Confusion that concern for one's own welfare is incompatible with the welfare of others.	We can wish both parties well without contradiction. Actions that fit into this category include doing dishes, being honest, learning all that you can, picking up a nail from the road, and so on.

5. State the argument against ethical egoism relating to its inability to be universalized.

If I am an ethical egoist, then it is in my interest not to tell others. I.e., it is not in my own interest to tell others I act from self-interest. (Many persons avoid or try to get even with selfish people; avarice breeds avarice.)
The rational egoist, then, cannot advocate that egoism be universally adopted precisely because that would be an action not in his self-interest.
To say that an action is right is to say that it is right for anyone in that position. But the egoist cannot want others to act as he does because this is not in his self-interest.
Hence, ethical egoism cannot be an ethical theory because any theory must be universalizable, or it is not a theory.

6. Is there any telling argument against ethical egoism?

As a theory, it is false since it cannot be generalized without contradiction.
As a practical doctrine, it cannot be shown to be inconsistent--a practice is not normally said to be logically consistent or inconsistent.
If the egoist genuinely believes that doing harm to others is fine, then there is no way to convince him otherwise because that is his fundamental attitude toward life. There is no common ground for argument.

1. There is just a disagreement in belief. The attitude of the egoist is that other persons are not important.

2. The best that we can do is to try to show that this practical doctrine is false in practice empirically. Namely, his life won't be as happy since others will oppose him or his soul will not be centered (cf., the Socratic Paradox).


12 December 1999 Please send corrections or suggestions to larchie@philosophy.lander.edu Please see the disclaimer concerning this page.