Chapter starts off with a dialogue between Edna Egoist and Alan Altruist
Read the dialogue: page. 35 [Please bring your books to class]
Edna: people are basically selfish--we only cooperate with each other to get what we want.
We have friends because we like the satisfaction of having friends.
People should look out for themselves first.
Alan: At least some people act unselfishly.
We ought to think about doing for others before we do for ourselves.
Question: what's the difference between egoism and altruism?
Question: do you think people are basically selfish, or do you think people genuinely care for others?
Alan and Edna disagree about two different issues:
1. Are people basically selfish?
2. Is it good or bad to be selfish?
Two meanings of Egoism: DESCRIPTIVE and NORMATIVE:
Descriptive: egoism a theory that describes what people are like.
Psychological Egoism: theory of human personality
Normative: Whether people are naturally selfish or not--they OUGHT to be selfish
Ethical Egoism: egoism as the basis of an ethical theory
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM? (36)
Basic position: People always or usually act in favor of their own narrow and short-range self interest (36)
ANOTHER VERSION: sometimes called ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST:
the self-interest may be understood more broadly and more long term
[Example, not polluting because it's better for your own long run self-interest to have a clean environment]
Basic broader view: having good health, satisfaction in a career, prestige, family and friends
--It in your self interest to have these.
[EXAMPLE: being an honest store owner, because having a reputation for honesty helps business]
Question: DESCRIPTIVE QUESTION: do people always act out of their own self-interest?
NO: problem, at least, of WEAKNESS OF WILL--I can't quite get myself to do what I have to to achieve my goal.
Lessor version: people act for the sake of their own best interests--this is what ultimately motivates people.
If people seem to act in the interests of others, it is only because they think it's in their own best interest to do so.
Example, pg. 37, of Abraham Lincoln saving the baby pigs, because he'd have no peace otherwise.
Mother Theresa, ultimately, hopes to get something out doing charitable works.
37 Is Psychological Egoism True?
How would we prove whether or not psychological egoism is true?
This is a theory about HUMAN MOTIVATION
Human motivation is a difficult thing to prove.
[Question: how can we prove it? Will just asking people work?--no]
Problem: People get satisfaction from helping others, but that's not the same as acting in order to get that satisfaction.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM needs to show that the GOAL of helping others is not to help others, but to achieve the PERSONAL SATISFACTION of helping others.
[Question: how do we achieve satisfaction: is looking for it the best way?]
Hard to prove Psychological Egoism: even if we often act for the sake of our own interest, it's hard to prove that we always and only act for the sake of our own interests.
ETHICAL EGOISM 37
What is Ethical Egoism?
Ethical egoism is the normative side:
Individual Ethical Egoism: I ought to look out only for my own interests. I ought to be concerned about others only to the extent that this also contributes to my own interests.
UNIVERSAL ETHICAL EGOISM: Everyone ought to look out for and seek only their own best interests.
Is Ethical Egoism a Good Theory? 38
How do evaluate ethical egoism?
MacKinnon suggests four ways:
1. Grounding in Psychological Egoism
2. Consistency or Coherence
3. Derivation from Economic Theory
4. Conformity of Common sense Morality
1. Grounding in Psychological Egoism
A. Problem of is psychological egoism true?
If it isn't, then a theory can't be grounded in it
2. Consistency or Coherence
The Theory is possibly inconsistent of incoherent
Inconsistent = seems to recommend different things at different times--contradicts itself
Incoherent = really doesn't make any sense
3. Derivation from Economic Theory
Theory of Adam Smith
Free Market economics works on the principle that if everyone pursues their own best interests--the greater good is served.
The invisible hand: makes everything work out.
Ethical Egoism-a leading ethical theory in corporate boardrooms.
PROBLEMS WITH APPLYING THIS TO ETHICS.
1. Does free market economics really imply ethical egoism?
2. If this works in economics--does that mean it should work for A MORAL THEORY?
4. Conformity of Common sense Morality
What if: this is what everyone does?
Just Common sense we should pursue our own interests!
Same types of problems:
1. Is this what Common sense morality says: we shouldn't help someone unless we hope to get some benefit?
What if torturing animals or other people were in your own best interest, would that make it right?
2. Even if this is what everyone believes, does that make it right?
Question: what about the fire fighters that went into the World Trade Center after Sept. 11-what would an ethical egoist say to them?
THE MORAL POINT OF VIEW 39
Question: Are there self-interested reasons to be moral?
Question: If someone only cared about themselves--would you call that person a MORAL person?
What if you asked for the justification of someone's morality:
They replied that
They didn't lie, because if you lie, no one will trust you.
They treat others well because then other will treat you well in return.
The list goes on.
Would you say this person acted MORALLY?
One suggestion is that the person is acting out of PRUDENCE not MORALITY
Question: what is prudence?
One understanding of THE MORAL POINT OF VIEW:
Being able to see beyond ourselves and our own interests.
Seeing things from another's point of view.
Being impartial.
Thinking of Morality as providing rules for social living.
Question: Are you acting morally when you treat family members and friends better than you treat others?
Question: how important is IMPARTIALITY for morality?
WHY BE MORAL? (40)
If morality does involve taking the point of view of another,
Why should we do that?
Are there any reason why someone should be moral?
[Question]
MacKinnon--breaks this question down:
Not why should EVERYONE be moral but why should I be moral?
Question: could we live without morality?
Difference: if NO ONE was moral v. If I am immoral
PLATO'S RING OF GYGES: In Plato's Republic he poses this problem.
Uses the example of the MYTH OF GYGES--
After an earthquake, a shepherd--Gyges--found a magic ring in a chasm of the earth when he put it on he noticed that by turning it he could become invisible.
Made himself king, etc.
Plato's question: if we could get away with doing anything we wanted, would there be any reason for us not to do things?
Is the only reason people do the right thing is to avoid being punished for doing the wrong thing?
[Question]
Question: is it to your advantage to be moral, or do nice guys finish last?
Is it too demanding to be moral?
No one ever said being moral was going to be easy!
Look at Thomas Hobbes, Self LoveWritten in 1651 (when he was 63 years old),
Title is a comparison of society and/or government to a giant, all encompassing monster, a whale.
Hobbes was a modernist, a realist
Hobbes giving an account of human nature: men governed by the laws of nature.
Human nature not something wonderful, but necessary.
In Leviathan, he gives a number of rules of nature, basically they reflect the principle of the desire for self preservation, I don't want to die.
Hobbes rethinking natural law (we'll do a chapter on natural law)
Hobbes influenced by Galileo. The natural condition of a body is for it to be in motion not rest.
The world is a world of flux--one in which order must be imposed.
As a political thinker, Hobbes is trying to conceptualize the relationship between the new nation-state and the emerging individual.
Individuals in a state of social mobility-have to find their place in the social order
The Real Natural Law: Rule of Nature: (Hobbes an excellent logician)
The Social Contract-a way out of the rule and state of nature.
We turn over some of our natural rights to The Sovereign in exchange for protection.
Selections from Leviathan
Starts out: 42, 1 animals have two kinds of motions:
Vital-breathing and blood circulation
Voluntary-moving limbs
Voluntary-under the heading of Endeavor-towards appetites, away from aversions.
Also CONTEMPT: the heart is moved by other objects instead of this one.
What we like is good
What we hate is evil.
What we contemn: vile, inconsiderable
Looks at Felicity: Happiness
No final or ultimate good, but our temporary desires satisfied.
The result, 43, 2
I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceases only in death.
The cause of this power is:
We can't assure the power and means to live well without the acquisition of more power.
Question: what kind of view of human nature is this?
Contrast with Aristotle: happiness is Eudaimonia-doing what you're best at.
The best kind of happiness is the happiness of the philosopher-
The philosopher's contemplation is closest to the activity of God.
Hobbes facts of human nature:
43, 2
From a point of view of physical strength, nature made men relatively equal.
Physically, any man can kill any man.
The weakest man can, in principle, kill the strongest, "either by secret machination or by confederacy with others" (poisoning him or staging a coup, etc.)
Question do you agree with this claim? What are its implications ?
For Hobbes, we're motivated by a pure interest in self-preservation.
Portrait of Humans: we're naturally vain. We all think we're the greatest.
43, 2-44,1
But this proves rather that men are in that point equal, than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of anything than that every man is contented with his share.
What happens if two of us equals desires the same thing?
44, 1
And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavor to destroy or subdue one another.
Question do you think he's right here ?
Where does war come from: Principal causes of quarrel:
We're all in competition: we want gain
We're all afraid. We want safety
44,2 Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.
Continues pg. 2, c2
The nature of war is not just actual fighting, but the fact that there's no assurance that there won't be fighting.
Like foul weather-not just the rain, but the inclination to rain.
All other time is peace.
Basic notions: State of war v. state of peace.
The natural situation of men is to be in a state of war.
State of competition--everyone wants what everyone else has, everyone can kill everyone else--individualism gone mad.
Every man is enemy to every man.
No one has any security other than their own strength and their own invention.
During this state of war, society just can't function Hence: bottom of 44, c2
no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
One of Hobbes' oft quoted phrases
The natural condition of mankind, is grim.
Question do you agree with this model: life is nasty, brutish and short ?
Hobbes discussion is kind of his peradventure-he admits there might be no literal time always like this, but there are places where this state does obtain.
Question: How would this fit Afghanistan on February 13, 2002?
Hobbes sees the Social Contract as a way of forming alliances to get out of the state of war.
We get together and makes pacts to make peace between our fellow men so that we can have peace rather than war.
Outside of the social contract there is no law other than natural law.
No right and wrong, no justice and injustice.
Where there is no law there is no injustice.
No right of property either.
We make this social contract out of mutual fear.
That's the origin of Civil Law
Civil Law v. Natural Law
Natural Law-means Natural Right: you protect your own
Every man a judge
46, 1
Nature has given to everyone a right to all; that is, it was lawful for every man, in the bare state of nature, or before such time as men had engaged themselves by any covenants or bonds, to do what he would, and against whom he thought fit, and to possess, use, and enjoy all what he would, or could get.
Problem though: nature gives all the right to all-but that's like having no right at all.
You can take anything you want, but likewise anyone can take anything of yours they want-no right of property ownership.
So, ultimately, we establish the social contract to get out of war and allow the sovereign to protect our property.
