James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Sceptism

 

Name of the Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Library Reference: N/A 

Amazon Link:   

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=

Contemporary+Moral+Problems&x=13&y=17

Quote: 

 

"To say that any action or policy of action is right (or that it ought to be adopted) entails that it is right for anyone in the same sort of circumstances.”

Learning Expectations:

 

1.       To know and understand what is 'Egoism"

2. To know and understand as well what is "Moral Sceptism"
3. To distinguish the diffrence between psychological egoism and Ethical egoism.
4. To learn and relate to the diffrent argument from this topic.
5. To know Rachel's point of views/ ideas about this kind of issues.

 

Review: 

 

          Entering the cave, Gyges discovered that it was in fact the tomb of an enthroned corpse who wore a golden ring, which Gyges pocketed. While Ethical Egoism is by contrast, a normative view about men ought to act.       The second argument; since so called unselfish actions always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the agent, and since this sense of satisfaction is a pleasant state of consciousness, it follows that the point of the action is really to achieve a pleasant states of consciousness, rather than to bring about any good for others. Therefore the action is considered “unselfish” only a superficial level of analysis. This argument suffers from defects similar to the previous one. To put the point more generally: if we have the positive attitude toward the attainment of some goal, then we may derive satisfaction from attaining the goal.   The first confusion is the confusion of selfishness with self interest; self behavior is a behavior that ignores that interest for others, in the circumstances in which their interest ought not to be ignored. This concept has definite evaluative flavor; to call someone “selfish” is not just to describe his action but to condemn it.      The second confusion is the assumption that every action is done either from self interest or from other regarding the motives; if there is no such thing as a genuine altruism that all actions must be done from self interest

This bring us to is perhaps the most popular “refutation” of ethical egoism current among philosophical writers the argument that ethical egoism  is at the bottom of inconsistent because it cannot be universalized. The argument goes like this:

The reason one ought not to do actions that would hurt other people would be hurt. The reason one ought to do actions that would be benefited.

 

Learning’s/Insights:

 

• "Psychological egoism holds that all human actions are self interested."
• "Ethical egoism say that all actions ought to be self interested."
• "The agent is merely doing what h e most wants to do."
• "The thing to be lamented is, not that man have so great regard to their own god or interest in the present world, for they have not enough. " 

•  

Integrative Questions:

 

1. What does Egoism means?
2. When we say Moral Sceptism we are referring to what?
3. What is the relation of the story the "Legend of Gyges" to this moral issue problem?
4. What are the relationship of the 3 argument stated in this issue?
5. How are 3 confusions related to one another? 

 

Review Questions: 

 

1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised from the story? 

 

                        “According to the legend, Gyges of Lydia was a shepherd in the service of King Candaules of Lydia. After an earthquake, a cave was revealed in a mountainside where Gyges was feeding his flock. Entering the cave, Gyges discovered that it was in fact the tomb of an enthroned corpse who wore a golden ring, which Gyges pocketed. Gyges then returned to his fellow shepherds, and began fumbling with the ring that he now wore. Gyges discovered that when he turned the collets of the ring to the inside of his hand, he became invisible to the other ...”

                   The question arises from this story goes like this “what reason is there for him to continue being “moral” when I is clearly not to his own advantages to do so?” 

Reference: 

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Ring_of_Gyges_-_The_legend/id/4712192  

 

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism. 

 

                        Psychological Egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do, that is, that the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self interest. On this view, even when men are acting in ways apparently calculated to benefit others, they are actually motivated by the belief that acting in this way is to their advantage, and if they did not believe this, they would not be doing that action. While Ethical Egoism is by contrast, a normative view about men ought to act. It is the view that, regardless of how men do in fact no behave, they have no obligation to do anything except with what is in their own interest; person is always justified in doing whatever is in his own interest, regardless of the effect of the other.

      Meaning Psychological Egoism in it’s point of view states that the only thing that a person always think of is his/her self only  he/she do not have concern with others that’s why it’s considered a selfish act of the individual. And so the Ethical Egoism states that the person is reason on whatever they do regardless on the effect of his/her actions to others. 

 

3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism> what are these arguments, and how does he reply to them? 

 

                        The first argument states that “the agent is merely doing what he most wants to do”. According to this chapter this argument is bad that it would not deserve to be taken seriously except for the fact that so many otherwise intelligent people have been taken by it. This argument rest on the premise that people never voluntarily do anything accepts what they want to do. Which means that all voluntary actions are motivated by agents wants or least the person is motivated. The mere fact that you are or we are acting on our own wants does not mean that you are acting or we are acting selfishly; that depends on what is it that we want or what you want. If we or you want only your own good, and care nothing for others then you are considered selfish; but if we or you also want other people to be well off and happy, and if we or you act on that desire, then my action is not selfish.

      The second argument; since so called unselfish actions always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the agent, and since this sense of satisfaction is a pleasant state of consciousness, it follows that the point of the action is really to achieve a pleasant states of consciousness, rather than to bring about any good for others. Therefore the action is considered “unselfish” only a superficial level of analysis. This argument suffers from defects similar to the previous one. To put the point more generally: if we have the positive attitude toward the attainment of some goal, then we may derive satisfaction from attaining the goal. But the object of our attitude is the attainment of the goal; and we must want to attain the goal therefore we can find any satisfaction on it.

      What I understand between the two arguments is that the point of views about the two arguments covers the concept of being selfish and unselfish, which explains that if an individual wants to have do to his/her action voluntarily then we cannot consider it as selfishly act but it also depends on our “wants”. And so when we speak of the unselfishly act, what I do understand is that there is satisfaction with regards to your actions and to your self that’s why it is stated that this positive attitude serves as our way of attaining our goal for satisfaction. 

 

4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism? 

 

      The first confusion is the confusion of selfishness with self interest; self behavior is a behavior that ignores that interest for others, in the circumstances in which their interest ought not to be ignored. This concept has definite evaluative flavor; to call someone “selfish” is not just to describe his action but to condemn it. Thus, you would not call him/her selfish for eating a normal meal in normal circumstances but you would call him/her a selfish for hoarding food while others about is starving.

     The second confusion is the assumption that every action is done either from self interest or from other regarding the motives; if there is no such thing as a genuine altruism that all actions must be done from self interes

      The third confusion is the common but false assumption that concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others. There is no inconsistency in desiring that everyone. Including oneself and others, be well off and happy. 

 

5. State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why does Rachels accept the argument? 

      This bring us to is perhaps the most popular “refutation” of ethical egoism current among philosophical writers the argument that ethical egoism  is at the bottom of inconsistent because it cannot be universalized. The argument goes like this:

      “To say that any action or policy of action is right (or that it ought to be adopted) entails that it is right for anyone in the same sort of circumstances.”

      Now that it is said that ethical egoism cannot meet this requirement because, as we have already seen, the egoist would not want others to act in the same way that others act. According to Rachels she think that this argument would be unwarranted; for he think that we can show, contrary to this argument, how ethical egoism can be maintained consistently; We need only to interpret the egoist position in sympathetic way:  we should say that he has in mind a certain kind of world which he would prefer overall others; it would be a world in which his own interest is minimized, regardless of the effects on other people. 

 

6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why we should help others? How can egoist reply? 

      The reason one ought not to do actions that would hurt other people would be hurt. The reason one ought to do actions that would be benefited. This may at first seem like a piece of philosophical sleight of hand, but it is not. The point is that the welfare of human beings is something that most of us value for is own sake, and not merely for the sake of something else. Therefore, when further reasons are demanded for valuing the welfare of human beings, we cannot point to anything further to satisfy this demand. It is not that we have no reason for pursuing these policies, but that our reason is that these policies are for the good of human beings.

 

Discussion Questions:

 

1. Has Rachels answered the questions raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly his answer?

 

Yes, because if your going to go back to what Rachels tackled to this chapter your going to observe that he stated clearly what is the answer to the question raised by Glaucon through explaining to us psychological and ethical egoism which states that we need and as an individual we need to be moral not only for ourselves but also for others because we are all equal and are all must be moral to one another.

 

2. Are genuine egoist rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even people they don’t know?

 

The exact answer for me when it comes to this question is definitely Yes. Because we cannot deny the fact that even though we are all equal as an individual, we are not all the same, and so in relation to the question yes genuine egoist is rare because I do believe and based on this chapter genuine egoist are those individual who are uniquely and definitely different and rare compare to other just simple egoist only.

 

3. Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of others and never in one’s own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not?

 

 This is “immoral” in a way that being selfish is considered a wrong act in which we consider only our selves to the fact that we only want only us can be benefited on something, or even a head on something, meaning us as an individual most of the times to want to leave something to ourselves than to leave something to others. But doing it “always” is not good at all.