Contemporary Moral Problems + Copyright

Contemporary Moral Pro

blems

+

Copyright Registration Existing

and Proposed Systems

by

Argel Cruz

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0Unported License.

Page

2

of

47

Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (James Rachels – Egoism and Moral Skepticism),

ContemporaryMoral Problems

by James E. WhiteQuote: “Ethical Egoism is the idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interestexclusively.”Learning Expectation(s)The reader is expected to learn:• Who is James Rachels• What is Psychological and Ethical Egoism, and Moral SkepticismJames Rachels is a University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama atBirmingham. He is an author of several books like “The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality”, and manymore. On the following paragraphs I will share my view on psychological and ethical egoism and moralskepticism. Moving on, psychological

egoism is the claim that people always act selfishly, to promote theirown self-interest or happiness. On the other hand, moral skepticism is the diverse collection of views thatdeny or raise doubts about various roles of reason in morality. Different versions of moral skepticism denyor doubt moral knowledge, justified moral belief, moral truth, moral facts or properties, and reasons to bemoral.

Psycholocgical Egosim is also defined as a reflex that every person has to orient themselvestoward their own welfare. Through this, it follows that every one of his (or her) voluntary actions is somegood to himself. If someone gives away the last piece of bread to someone else, it is because they wantto look like a better person, due to the fact that they would give away the last piece of bread. Humannature is completely and exclusively egoistic. People are entirely selfish and devoid of any genuinefeelings of sympathy, benevolence, or sociability. They are always thinking of themselves in everythingthey do. Each individual is preoccupied exclusively with the gratification of personal desires (felicity orhappiness).Ones success in maintaining a continuous flow of gratification is the means of one’shappiness. Our ordinary thinking about morality is full of assumptions that we almost never question. Weassume, for example, that we have an obligation to consider the welfare of other people when we decidewhat actions to perform or what rules to obey; we think that we must refrain from acting in ways harmful toothers, and that we must respect their rights and interests as well as our own. We also assume thatpeople are in fact capable of being motivated by such considerations, that is, that people are not whollyselfish and that they do sometimes act in the interests of others. James Rachels differentiates betweenpsychological and ethical egoism and attempts to show that neither is acceptable. In response to thepsychological egoist’s claim that people never act unselfishly, because they always do what they mostwant to do, Rachels argues that it is the object of an action (not the subjective want motivating it) thatdetermines whether that action is selfish or not. If I want other people to grow, and I act on that desire,then I am acting unselfishly. The satisfaction I may derive is beside the point. That’s basically the point ofRachels. The ethical egoist argues that, even if it is possible to act unselfishly, there is no reason why weshould. Conceding that no logical refutation of this position is possible Rachels is unwaged by those whopoint to its supposed non-universal Rachels argues that human welfare is something most of us value forits own sake. No further reasons are necessary for performing actions that help and avoiding actions thathurt others. If the egoist refuses to accept this, that is, if he does not care about the effects of his actionson others, then philosophical argument has reached the limits of what it can accomplish.On the other hand, it is also considered as the view of that humans are always motivated by self-interest; even in what seem to be acts of unselfishness. It claims that, when people choose to help others,they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly orindirectly, from doing so. It is a non-normative view, since it only makes claims about how things are, nothow they ought to be. It is, however, related to several other normative forms of egoism, such as ethicalegoism and egoism. Going back, psychological egoism seems to fly in the face of the facts. For me itmeans that it is already given and existing in our life. It is a perfect clear example of unselfish behavior.

Page

3

of

47

Integrative Questions:1. What is Psychological Egoism?2. What is Ethical Egoism?3. What is Moral Skepticism?4. How does the three related to each other?5. Who is James Rachels?Lessons Learned:I learned that psychological egoism is the view of that humans are always motivated by self-interest; even in what seem to be acts of unselfishness. It claims that, when people choose to help others,they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly orindirectly, from doing so. I learned that ethical egoism and psychological egoism is neither acceptable(according to Rachels).

Review Answers:

1. It’s about Gyges, a shepherd who found a ring that enabled him to become invisible. He used hisinvisibility to gain wealth and power. The questions raised were “what would rouge and a righteous mando in if they were in Gyges place?” Glaucon argues that the righteous man would do the same thing thatthe rouge did. I think that this is true because power corrupts. We see this in our politicians and ininfluential people.2. Psychological is how people act in order to benefit themselves and ethical is how people would act inorder to benefit themselves.3. The first argument is about Smith choosing not to go to the country he plans to go to in order to helphis friend in his studies. Based on Psychological egoism Smith is still selfish because he still did what hewanted which is to help his friend. The second argument is also the same as the first one.4. Selfishness with self-interest, every action is done either from self-interest or other regarding motives,and the concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.5.”You ought to pursue your interests even if it means destroying Paul.” It is inconsistent because aperson should do what is right for his own self even if it affects other people.6. Because other people would benefit. The egoist won’t be able to answer and the argument will stop.

Discussion Answers:

1. I think that Rachel’s answer to this question is yes because all throughout the essay he has approvedof being moral.2. I think that genuine egoists are rare because if not then everybody would be doing whatever they wantwhenever they want.3. I think that it is moral because it will benefit humanity as a whole.