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: scientific theory: egoism a theory that describes what people are like.
Psychological Egoism: theory of human personality
Normative: Moral theory: Whether people are naturally selfish or not--they OUGHT to be selfish
Ethical Egoism: egoism as the basis of an ethical theory
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM (36)
Basic position: People always or usually act in favor of their own narrow and short-range self interest (36)
My term: a) INFANTILE SELF-INTEREST
ANOTHER VERSION:
b) ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST
Here self-interest may be understood more broadly and more long term
Example: supporting environmental regulations because it's better for your own long run self-interest to have a clean environment
Broader view:--It in your self interest to have:
good health, satisfaction in a career, prestige, family and friends
Question: does the debate about self-interest change if we clarify our definition from infantile self-interest to enlightened self interest?
Moral example here: the store owner who is honest because having a reputation for honesty helps business.
Psychological egoism: a psychological condition–study it “scientifically”
Question: DESCRIPTIVE QUESTION: do people always act out of their own self-interest?
Problem of Akrasia: WEAKNESS OF WILL
--I can't quite get myself to do what I need to do to achieve my goal.
Question: can you think of examples of this?
Self interest: 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 if he just let them die.
Thinking of Mother Theresa, as ultimately hoping to get something out doing charitable works.
Question: key questions here:
1. does it matter if our altruistic acts are ultimately motivated by a form of self-interest?
2. Is it morally better to derive your own self-satisfaction from helping others?
37 Is Psychological Egoism True?
How would we prove whether or not psychological egoism is true?
Psychological theory about HUMAN MOTIVATION
Problem: Human motivation is a difficult thing to prove.
Question: how can we prove it? Will just asking people work?--no?
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM needs to show that the GOAL of helping others is not primarily to help others, but, primarily, to achieve the PERSONAL SATISFACTION of helping others.
Question: how do we achieve satisfaction: is looking for it the best way?
Problem: It's hard to prove that we always and only act for the sake of our own interests–difficulty even with the descriptive, “scientific” side.
ETHICAL EGOISM 37
Turn to the normative side: Ethical Egoism
Two forms:
Individual Ethical Egoism (IEE): 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 (UEE): Everyone ought to look out for and seek only their own best interests.
Question: what’s the difference in these two theories?
If you hold to IEE, you probably don’t want UEE.
Why not?
Evaluating Ethical Egoism (pg. 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 to Common sense Morality
1. Grounding in Psychological Egoism
A. Is psychological egoism true?
If it isn't, then a theory can't be grounded in it
B. The "Is-ought problem" in Ethics
Is-ought problem in ethics: from the fact that something is the case, it doesn’t follow that it ought to be the case: Psychological egoism may be true, but that doesn’t mean it should be the basis of our moral obligations!
From the fact that people are or may be motivated by Egoism, does that mean that they should be?
2. Consistency or Coherence
The Theory is possibly inconsistent of incoherent
An Inconsistent theory = contradicts itself: recommends different things at different times--contradicts itself
An Incoherent theory = doesn't hold together, doesn’t make any sense
Tests of consistency:
(UEE) Ethical Universalism: demands that everyone should follow this theory
But: how could everyone follow this theory?
Seems like UEE not consistent.
IEE seems to oppose UEE–not in your interest to have everyone believe this.
COHERENCY:
Question: does it make sense to say that everyone should follow their own best-interests? What does that mean?
Question: what about a mother caring for her child–is she maximizing her own self-interest?
Question: how much do we really depend on others? Does this dependency count against ethical egoism?
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 and in “Classical Economics.
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?
It’s 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: 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?
Contrast: prudence v. 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!
CONTRACTARIANISM:
Principle: the basis of ethics is an implied contract between us all.
Ethical behavior is in all of our general self-interest
So we “agree” to follow ethical rules and face sanctions if we do not.
Position of: Morals by Agreement
Advantages of this approach: most verifiable: we all care for our own interests, therefore we’re not basing our ethical system on anything beyond us.
No problem of defining an Intrinsic or natural good!
Other versions: reason, happiness, conformity to the natural order
Self-interest is held to be obvious
Briefly: Thomas Hobbes, Self Love
Written in 1651 (when he was 63 years old), Comes from Hobbes’ book Leviathan
Title is a comparison of society and/or government to a giant, all encompassing monster, a whale.
Hobbes gives a psychological egoist account of human nature
Starts out: 42, 1 Basic human nature:
What we like is good
What we hate is evil.
What is happiness is a matter of our temporary desires satisfied.
What basically motivates: we want more things
We don’t want to die.
We’re all in competition.
Key feature here: 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 are motivated by a pure interest in self-preservation.
This Leads to struggle and competition: one needs to dominate the other.
Question do you think he’s right here ?
Origin of War: We’re all in competition: we want gain
For Hobbes: We’re all afraid. We want safety
Hobbes born as the ships of the Spanish Armada are coming to invade England: “Fear and I born at the same time”
We’re in a condition of war: “a war of every man against every man.”
Continues pg. 2, c2–even if we’re not actually fighting, we’re potentially fighting.
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.
In Hobbes view: Every man is enemy to every man.
No one has any security other than their own strength and their own invention.
Problem: 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.
Question: How would this fit Iraq on February 25 2003
Hobbes sees the Social Contract as a way of forming alliances to get out of the state of war.
Outside of the social contract there is no law other than natural law.
No right and wrong, no justice and injustice.
Civil Law comes out of the Social Contract
We turn over our right to judge everyone to a sovereign.
So, ultimately, we establish the social contract to get out of war and allow the sovereign to protect our property.
Contractarian Solution: we’re all self-interested
That mutual self-interest a) puts all our lives at risk and
b) gives us a possible way out.
We take the way out, and form a society: because it is in our mutual self-interest.
Hobbes view attractive to many because it’s a minimalist view.
Nothing added on to us but pure self-interest.
