Date of publication: 2017-08-30 17:33
So, self-interest or selfishness is not the ONLY motivation for his morally sound decision. Much we do is motivated by self-interest, but not solely and independently. I believe that altruism does exist and that psychological egoism fails without the ?method of reinterpreting motives.
Showed next 755 characters
But if I was rule utilitarian, which says that one behavior is evaluated by rules that would lead to the greatest good. It also says that we shouldn't judge the rightness or wrongness of the act by its consequences, but the impact of the consequences universally.
This is convincing when &ldquo duty&rdquo means &ldquo moral duty.&rdquo It is less convincing when, as Prichard also thinks, the issue is simply what one ought to do. He takes there to be only one sense of &ldquo ought,&rdquo which he treats as &ldquo morally ought.&rdquo Any other &ldquo ought&rdquo is treated as really making the non-normative claim that a certain means is efficient for attaining a certain end. But ethical egoism can be seen as making categorical ought-claims. And the historical popularity of ethical egoism, which Prichard so often notes, indicates that self-interest is not obviously irrelevant to what one ought to do (in a not specifically moral sense).
Ten years later!!!!..I came across this paper to get clarity on PE for my class. your paper was nice and clear, thanks. DSP and Daniel-I agree with your thoughts.
One problem with this argument is that psychological egoism seems false. Replacing psychological with predominant egoism loses the key claim that it is impossible to motivate anyone to make an uncompensated sacrifice.
First, one might argue for a moral theory, as one argues for a scientific theory, by showing that it best fits the evidence. In the case of moral theories, the evidence is usually taken to be our most confident common-sense moral judgments. Egoism fits many of these, such as the requirements of cooperation in ordinary cases. It fits some judgments better than utilitarianism does. For example, it allows one to keep some good, such as a job, for oneself, even if giving the good to someone else would help him slightly more, and it captures the intuition that I need not let others exploit me. The problem is that, as the discussion of the cooperation argument shows, it also fails to fit some of the confident moral judgments we make.
I would just like to say that I know of one action which I find 655 percent unselfish. Prayer. When you pray for the people you love and care about to feel better or be happy, there is nothing in it for you. I pray nightly for my friends which I haven 8767 t seen in years. Their happiness, which I am praying for, does not affect me at all. I am praying solely for their benefit, and I mean that with my whole heart. So, psychological egoism is fale and very flawed.
The definition for ethical egoism is basically 8766 how we ought to act 8767 . Ethical egoism builds itself around the idea that the best way to promote collective reimbursement, is to follow self-interests. By always striving for our own personal self-fulfillment a person will better be able to promote what is in the best interest of the community, more so than always striving to promote the community 8767 s interests. A person is able to hold a sociable role that supports the general public by taking care of his or her own well-being and self-interest first.
A further worry is that it is not clear that having the belief best increases reproductive fitness. De Lazari-Radek and Singer argue, in reply to the objection that their argument takes away the justification for believing that pain is bad, that there is no advantage to believing that pain is bad I am sufficiently motivated to avoid pain without any such belief (de Lazari-Radek and Singer 7569 768&ndash 769 for the general point, see Parfit 7566 v. 7 577&ndash 85). The same seems to go for rational egoism: I am sufficiently motivated to act egoistically without any belief in the truth of rational egoism.
i was having a hard time understanding this theory in ethics class. i am glad that i came across your paper, it simplified it for me (thanks), but I do hope that we as humans can prove this theory wrong and that we do things out of the good of our hearts, not just because we can benefit from our good deeds.