Rachels, Ch 6: Ethical Egoism
- Definition of Ethical Egoism: Each person ought to pursue his or her
self-interest exclusively
- Aspects of ethical egoism:
- Ethical egoism rejects ordinary assumption that other people's
interests count for their own sake.
- We have no moral duty except to do what is best for ourselves
- One might be obligated to help others, but only as a means to our
long term self interest
- Helping others is right only if (and only when and because) it is
to our own advantage
- Ethical egoism is not:
- One should always do what one wants to do
- E.g., one may want a cigarette, but it is not in one's self-interest to smoke
- One should always do what gives one the most pleasure
- Pleasure and self-interest are not the same
- (Ethical hedonism would be the view that one should
always pursue one's own pleasure exclusively)
- Ethical egoism says we should do what is really best for
ourselves in the long run
- Difference between Ethical Egoism (EE) and Psychological Egoism
(PE)
- PE: A descriptive theory of human nature about how humans in
fact do (must) behave (always exclusively in own interest)
- EE: A normative theory about how people ought to behave
(they should act in their own interest exclusively)
- Possible relationships between EE and PE
- Does PE imply EE? No: Is does not imply ought (naturalistic
fallacy)
- If PE true, then pointless to advocate any moral theory, including
EE
- If PE is true, then any altruistic moral theory asks us to do
the impossible
- If PE is true, then EE is pointless, because we are already
automatically acting correctly (that is in our self-interest as EE tells us we should act)
- If both PE and EE are true, then we are always acting correctly
(all our acts are right; we never do anything wrong)
THREE ARGUMENTS FOR EE
- Utilitarian argument for EE: If everyone looked out for themselves,
society will be better off; so we should care only for ourselves
- Altruism is self-defeating; everyone will be best served
if we each act in our own self interest instead of acting
to benefit others
- One: Since we are more familiar with out own needs (than are
other people)
- Two: We are better able to satisfy them (than are other people)
- Three: And so if we mind our own business
- Four: Instead of trying to help others (which is degrading to them
and makes them dependent on us)
- Five: We will all be better off (than if we all tried to take care of
each other's needs)
- Problem with the utilitarian argument for EE:
- This argument is that the welfare of society overall will be better
served if each looks out solely for her own self-interest
- But the welfare of society is not something an ethical egoist
should be concerned with (for EE claims one should only be
concerned with oneself)
- Ann Rand's argument for EE:
- Ethics of pure altruism is life denying; requires one to sacrifice
one's life for others; thus only EE is compatible with the value of
individual life
- Problem: Attacking a straw man (person); Pure altruism (one's
own interests count for nothing and others interests count for
everything) is a crazy theory. But the alternative to that need not
be EE; a middle position is possible and more plausible (than
either pure altruism or EE): it says both one's own interests and
the interests of others count morally
- Common sense morality argument for EE: EE implies the rules of
common sense morality
- It is to our own advantage to follow the rules of common sense
morality (not harming others, being truthful, keeping our
promises) and this is why we should follow them
- For if we harm others, or lie to them, or break our
promises, they will treat us badly
- We are better off if we obey these rules, because that is the
way we can insure others treat us well
- So we should follow these rules because it is in our self-interest to do so
- Problems
- Self-interest and morality (ordinary rules of morality) don't
always coincide
- Sometimes it is to our advantage to break moral rules
and treat others badly
- Even if they did--even if, e.g., giving to famine relief was
to our own advantage--that would not show that this is the
reason to give to famine relief
- That EE implies following moral rules, doesn't show
that it is the best or only reason for following them
(as it assumes)
THREE ARGUMENTS AGAINST EE
- EE does not resolve moral conflicts (and a moral theory needs to do
this)
- Instead of settling conflicts of interest, EE exacerbates them by
telling each individual to promote his/her own interests
- Problem: But this assumes the point of morality is to act as an
impartial judge
- If one thinks morality is more like a commissioner of
boxing (telling each fighter to do her best), and that
resolution of moral disputes involves winning, then this
objection has no force
- EE is self-contradictory because it gives inconsistent advice
- When two people's interests conflict, EE tells A to win out over
B and B to win out over A and these are not compatible
recommendations
- Problem: The advice is consistent to each, but not overall
consistent and the EE can claim this is not a problem
- EE is unacceptably arbitrary (it is like racism and sexism in being
a form of unjustified discrimination)
- This is the criticism that Rachels accepts (and developed)
- Difference in treatment (i.e., "discrimination") is justifiable only
if there is some relevant factual difference between individuals
that is relevant to and justifies treating the individuals differently
- Thus racism is arbitrary because there are no morally relevant
differences between the races that justifies the differences in
treatment the racist advocates
- EE is a similar type of arbitrary discrimination
- EE divides the world into two groups (me and everyone else) and
says the interest of one group (me) counts for more than the
interests of the other group (everyone else)
- But what justifies this difference in treatment?
- Is the individual more intelligent than others? Enjoy her
life more than others? Have needs and abilities that others
don't have?
- What makes the individual so special?
- Given there is no answer, EE is an arbitrary doctrine in the same
way that racism or sexism are arbitrary doctrines
- Why care about others?
- We should care about the interests of others for the very same
reason we care about our own interests
- Because their needs and desires are comparable to our own
- Why care about starving people?
- We care about ourselves; if we were starving we would go
to almost nay lengths to get food
- But there is no relevant difference between us and them
- So if our needs should be met, so should theirs
- Question: What moral theory should (would) an ethical egoist
advocate publically ? Would it be ethical egoism?