Egoism (philosophy 252)

Egoism is a teleological theory of ethics that sets the ultimate criterion of morality in some nonmoral value (i.e. happiness or welfare) that results from acts (Pojman 276). It is contrasted with altruism, which is the view that one's actions ought to further the interests or good of other people, ideally to the exclusion of one's own interests (Pojman 272). This essay will explain the relation between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. It will examine how someone who believes in psychological egoism explains the apparent instances of altruism. And it will discuss some arguments in favor of universal ethical egoism, and exam Pojman's critque of arguments for and against universal ethical egoism.

Psychological egoism, a descriptive claim about human nature, states that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest. To act in one's self-interest is to act mainly for one's own good and loving what is one's own (i.e. ego, body, family, house, belongings in general). It means to give one's own interests higher priority then others'. "It (psychological egoism) claims that we cannot do other than act from self-interest motivation, so that altruism-the theory that we can and should sometimes act in favor of others' interests-is simply invalid because it's impossible" (Pojman 85). According to psychological egoists, any act no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (i.e., desire for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness).

For someone who believes in psychological egoism, i t is difficult to find an action that would be acknowledged as purely altruistic. In practice, altruism, is the performance of duties to others with no view to any sort of personal gain for one's efforts. However, the psychological egoist argues that there is almost always some benefit to oneself in any action one chooses. If one performs an act beneficial to others with a view to gaining affection, respect, reputation, or any form of gratitude then it is not an altruistic act. It is in fact a selfish act because the principal motivation was to reap some benefit for oneself. The desire of this benefit exists equally whether it is psychological, emotional, intellectual, or material. Each form of desirable benefit is philosophically identical as a motivation. According to the psychological egoist, in most cases, behavior may appear as if it is altruistic, but in fact, due to the motivation behind the act, it is quite the opposite. Instead, the act is driven by a rational and reasoned desire to benefit by following one's own personal system of values.

Individuals instilled with a belief that serving others is their duty may, contrary to the idea of psychological egoism , begin the habit of performing truly altruistic actions out of this sense of duty only. Some feel that even this can be construed as self-interest, because the benefit might be the perceived avoidance of the anticipated feelings of guilt which may arise if the duty is not fulfilled. In any case, there are those who rely on their sense of duty to direct them to what they perceive to be virtuous behaviour. This frequently leads to resentment against those for whom they are performing their duties. Moreover, some believe that altruist behaviour becomes an impossibility, as people inevitably follow their own interests one way or another. However, this is refuted by the fact that children and young adults are known to make life choices out of an overwhelming sense of duty to the expectations of authority figures, their family or friends, in denial of their own wishes. In general, however, altruism usually means helping another person without expecting a reward from that or other persons, although it may well entail the internal benefit of a good feeling, sense of satisfaction, self-esteem, fulfillment of duty, or the like.

In relation to psychological egoism, ethical egoism is the view that one always ought to be motivated by self-interst (Pojman 90). Ethical egoism is a prescriptive, or normative, theory about how people ought to act; which is in their own perceived best interests. Moreover, ethical egoism claims that the promotion of one's own good is in accordance with morality. In the strong version it is held that it is always moral to promote one's own good and it is never moral not to promote it. In the weak version, it claims that while it is always moral to promote one's good, it is not necessarily never moral not to do so, that is, there may be conditions in which the avoidance of personal interest may be a moral action.

There are two forms of ethical egoism, individual ethical egoism and universal ethical egoism. "Individual ethical egoism is the view that everyone ought to serve my self-interest; that is, moral rightness is defined solely in terms of what is good for me, whether or not it is good for anyone else" (Pojman 90). Therefore, all moral rightness defines itself in terms of what is good for that particular individual, even if it conflicts with the values and interests of others. It is not clear how an altruist could argue with such an individualistic ethical egoist, but it is also not clear that such an egoist should choose to argue with the altruist. Since the individualistic egoist believes that whatever serves his own interests is morally right, he will want everyone else to be altruistic. Otherwise they would not serve the egoist's interests. It seems that anyone who truly believed in individualistic ethical egoism could not promote the theory without inconsistency.

On the other hand, "universal ethical egoism is the theory that everyone ought always to serve his or her own self-interest; that is, everyone ought to do what will maximize one's own expected utility or bring about one's own happiness, even when if means harming other" (Pojman 90). Unlike individual ethical egoism, universal ethical egoism is a universal theory. It is not egotistical, but rather it favors long-term interests over short-term interests. Overall, it encourages everyone to try to prosper, and it recognizes that in order to achieve this there need to be compromises. Therefore, the universal egoist would admit that it is necessary to some extent to give up certain freedoms and cooperate with others to achieve one's goals.

There are three arguments in favor of universal ethical egoism that should be considered. These arguments include the economist argument, the Ayn Rand argument for the virtue of selfishness, and the Hobbesian argument. The economist argument suggests that individual self-interest in a competitive marketplace produces a state that is best for society at large because it causes individuals to produce a better product and sell it at a lower price than competitors (Pojman 90). Thus, self-interest leads to the best overall situation.

Pojman critiques the economist argument and claims that it is not an argument for ethical egoism (Pojman 92). Instead, it is an argument for utilitarianism, which makes use of self-interest to attain the good of all (Pojman 277). The goal of this theory is social utility, but it dependent on the free-enterprise system that guides self-interest to reach that goal. "The economist argument.suggests that we not worry about the social good but only about our own good, and in that way we will attain the highest social good possible" (Pojman 93). Pojman objects that though self-interest often leads to greater social utility, it may get out of hand and need to be supplemented for concern for others. Thus, a sufficient moral system may need to bring attention to the needs of others and direct people to meeting those needs even when people do not consider it to be in their immediate self-interest.

The Ayn Rand argument for the virtue of selfishness argues that selfishness is a virtue and altruism is a vice, a totally destructive idea that leads to the undermining of individual worth (Pojman 91). According to Rand, "since finding happiness is the highest goal and good in life, altruism, which calls on us to sacrifice our happiness for the good of others, is contrary to our highest good" (Pojman 91). It seems that Rand believes that every individual has a responsibility to seek his or her own good first, regardless of how it affects others.

Pojman critiques the Ayn Rand argument for the virtue of selfishness and claims that it is flawed because it assumes that absolute altruism and absolute egoism are the only alternatives. He argues that this is an extreme view and that there are many intermediate options. For example, an egoist would admit that sometimes the best way to reach self-fulfillment is for one to forget about him- or herself and strive to live for goals, causes, or other people. Another position is that self-interest and self-love are morally good things, but not at the expense of other people's legitimate interests. Moreover, Pojman disagrees with Rand's ambiguous and overlapping definitions of selfishness and self-interest. He argues that these concepts are different and that self-interest means that one is concerned with promoting his or her own good, though not necessarily at any cost (Pojman 94). Whereas selfishness entails that one sacrifice the good of others, even when it is unjust to do so, for one's own good (Pojman 94). Self-interest is a part of human nature, whereas selfishness is a failure to accept the moral point of view.

According to the Hobbesian argument, human action is predominately motivated by self-interest, because to do otherwise would take a lot of effort (Pojman 92). Thus, it is morally permissible to act entirely out of self-interest. However, one should aim at fulfilling long-term versus short-term interests, and therefore needs to refrain from immediate gratification of his or her senses because in doing those things it would break down the social conditions that enable one to reach his or her goals (Pojman 92). Thus, in general one should do good unto others in order to help ensure that they do good unto him or her. However, sometimes one should cheat and harm others when it will maximize utility and promote one's overall self-interest (Pojman 92).

Lastly, Pojman critiques the Hobbesian argument. He claims that this is the most plausible of the three arguments for ethical egoism. However, he argues that it depends too much on psychological egoism because it assumes that one cannot do any better than be an egoist and therefore one should be as enlightened about his or her egoism as possible (Pojman 94). Pojman argues that if psychological egoism is false there is no reason to rule out the potential nonegoistic behavior. "If Hobbesians qualify their position to embrace predominant psychological egoism-the theory that human nature causes us to be heavily biased toward our own self-interest over that of others' interest-then we need not of necessity become ethical egoists" (Pojman 94).

In conclusion, it is apparent that universal ethical egoism has many arguments. Moreover, it is clear that this theory tends toward solipsism, a person's view that only he or she exists, and the omission of many of the deepest human values, such as love and deep friendship. In addition, it violates the principle of fairness and it prohibits altruistic behavior, which one would perceive as morally permissible.

Bibliography

Pojman, Louis P. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2002.