Contemporary Moral Problems, James Rachels : Egoism and Scepticism

Library Reference Number: N/A

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306

Quote: “The egoist challenge to our ordinary moral convictions amounts to a demand for an explanation of why we should adopt certain policies of action, namely policies in which the good of others is given importance.”

Learning Expectations: To be able to know how people who apply the moral principle of egoism actually survive through life on the notion that they actually just act based on self-interest alone.

Chapter Review:

     The chapter begins with a brief differentiation of the story of Gyges’ wherein a shepherd found a ring that enabled him to be invisible. A question was imposed with the story, that what if there were two men who were given such power to be invisible with the ring they bear, with one man being evil and does all that he wants and kills whoever he needs to kill just for the sake of getting what he wants while being fully aware of the fact that he can get away with it, and the other being a man who is moral and just – how will the latter put up with the former? The intrinsic question rings about debates, yet comes with a definite answer in the theory of egoism – and that is the latter will act in the same manner as the former did, applying the principles of hedonism (pleasure is good) as that whatever refuted both to do what they want are now virtually impossible to blame them for any effect that their actions may bring to the society as long as they gain pleasure in doing what they do out of self-interest.

     A series of debates follow – with Rachels trying to point out the problems lurking within the theory of egoism, and regardless of how well it can be used as an easy excuse for moral justifications and implications, can it be very damaging and non-sociable if most of us actually live on its concept.

What I’ve learned:

     It’s pretty much an eye-opener as to how the first moral theory that would be knocking right in front of you could perhaps be the most flawed of all of which yet still retain the title of being the most acceptable as per Rachels’ implications.

     Egoism and scepticism is indeed a good way to explain the reason behind our actions, but unless supported and upheld by a good philosopher (such as Rachels), the understanding of such theory can and will be misunderstood. To merely state that “human actions is done because of self-interest” or “you did this because you knew it will benefit you” whether such acts resulted into crime or not may indeed serve as misleading if not justified by those that have suggested it. It is indeed true that we act out of own desires, but such desires also implies an internal moral sense of sustaining our actions and justifying it based on the underlying effects it may bring about to other people, which is a good way of reasoning out as to why we can’t just simply set someone’s house on fire and let everyone inside die.

     It is quite agreeable that egoists are indeed rare in our world – perhaps one in a billion, or even trillion, but it is quite interesting to note that one of us in class may even be perhaps one – well, we can never tell, but if it were so, it’s a scary note well-stuck on our thoughts now isn’t it?

Integrative Questions:

1. How can an egoist refute an ethicist’ claim that instances in which we do what we want can also be brought about by the thought that such actions can also benefit others?

2. What is the difference between psychological and ethical egoism?

3. How does the legend of Gyges relate to the theory of egoism?

4. How can someone’s desire be foregone for something else that will hurt him instead?

5. How can a completely egoist person survive and defend his reasoning to his community?

Review Questions:

1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?

     The legend of Gyges revolves around Gyges himself, a shepherd who was bestowed with a ring that allowed him to be invisible. He used the power of the ring to capture the Queen, murder her King, and consequently seize the throne.

     The question about morality that is raised by the story is on the part wherein Gaucon asks what if the circumstance is that two of such rings be given to two men – one who will use it for evil and one for the good. The evil will obviously no longer follow the law, as he is well aware that he can never be detected for any wrongdoings he may do. But the question though would be about the one who is good – what will he do once he is bestowed with the ring? Based from the theory, he’d be just the same as the one of evil, for his hunger for self-interest is triggered by the fact that the restraints brought upon him by the morality he instilled in himself now leaves as he is liberated from the moral limitations brought about by such.

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

     Psychological egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do, while ethical egoism on the other hand implies that men have no obligation to do anything except what is in their own interests.

3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them?

     The first argument is that if we describe one person’s action as selfish, while we describe another as the opposite, we are merely forgetting the fact that in both cases, given that actions are indeed voluntary, then both persons, whether selfish or unselfish, are actually merely doing what they most want to do. Such case is supported by Rachels story about a guy named Smith who chose to stay behind with his friend to help him study rather than go to the country. In the given case, Smith stayed behind for presumably that’s what he most wanted in the first place. Thus, such act can’t be called unselfish, as such can be assumed was done based on what Smith really wanted to do most.

The second argument, on the other hand, implies that since these so-called unselfish actions always produce a sense of self-satisfaction, such then is merely to gain a pleasant sense of consciousness. Given in the case of Smith, it can be implied that he simply decided on staying mainly because of the reason that he’d “feel bad” if he left a friend to go for the country. Such is a defect in itself as it shows that Smith isn’t just merely going to feel bad about the fact that he’d leave a friend, but because of something else – and that is he wants peace of mind.

4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?

     The three commonplace confusions that Rachels detect in the thesis of pscychological egoism are:

          A. Confusion of selfishness with self-interest – as further stated, these two are not the same. Self-interest           involves the self alone, as with the case of a man visiting a doctor because of a tooth ache and wants to have it           gone. It only serves one person, but it doesn’t bring others inconvenience. Selfishness, on the other hand,           involves matters wherein conditions of others are disregarded on circumstances that it shouldn’t be, as           exemplified by Rachels in the case of when a man eats a normal meal on a normal day, such is brought about           by self-interest. But when a man eats a normal meal at a time when the rest of the world have nothing to eat,           then such is what we call selfishness.

          B. The assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other-regarding motives – as           given in the case of a man smoking cigarettes, who knows that smoking will eventually lead him to cancer, yet           continues to smoke. Such case exemplifies that if it were out of self-interest, that man would quit smoking, as           such will indeed give him cancer. The case of the man then is a matter of “undisciplined pleasure-seeking”, as           Rachels state, and not self-interest which then clearly defines the difference between self-interest and           other-regarding motives.

          C. The common but false assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine           concern for the welfare of others – a good supporting example in this case is that when a man tries and burns           a house with people in it. He wouldn’t burn it given that he knows he will be put to jail if he does it and will ruin           his public image in the process as well. Such is for his own welfare, but is also for the welfare of others as well.

5. State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept this argument?

     The argument that says that ethical egoism is inconsistent is:

           “To say that any action or policy of action is right (or that it ought to be adopted) entails that it is right for                anyone in the same sort of circumstances. I cannot, for example, say that is right for me to lie to you, and                yet object when you lie to me (provided, of course, that the circumstances are the same).”

          Rachels doesn’t accept such argument is because of the claim that such is “unwarranted.” The example that Rachels garnered for this argument is in the case of an egoist who wants to be the best or at least maximize his potential in a world of his own. It cannot be implied that no one can follow such ideals on the mere case that such is inconsistent – looking at it in a sympathetic manner, we can say that given the argument, the egoist who wants this kind of world, also wants others to have their kind of world. Such can be done in a consistent manner as that the rest can take into account the egoist’ ideals yet have different calculations as to how they can get to what they want.

6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply?

     The reason why we shouldn’t hurt others is not only on the grounds that such would harm other persons, but because it will also be against the self-interest of the person himself. An example here will be stealing another person’s purse. A person will not steal the purse and let the victim suffer the losses, but the person will not also steal the purse on the grounds that he’ll risk imprisonment and gain a negative image in his community for doing so. This, in effect, also supports the reason as to why we should help others – as with the example of a person who’s helping a scientist fund his projects for solar panels that will power an entire community. True, it serves self-interest as the person who’s helping the scientist will also benefit from the scientist’ work, but such help will benefit others in the process as well. The application of self-interest less the positive effect on others is the reply that can be gained from an egoist. He simply doesn’t care, and thus will not help others even if such satisfies his self-interest.

Discussion Questions:

1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly is his answer?

     If based on context, I’d say that Rachels really hasn’t answered the question raised by Glaucon. The thing with books pertaining to morality and ethics is the fact that there is always one perception that its readers should try and not to expect, and such is the fact that the reader should never expect either a YES or a NO from the context itself. The thing is, that’s how ethics go, the definition of right and wrong is just as similar to beauty being in the eyes of the beholder.

     Rachels may have stated the problems with the thesis of egoism, but such problems can never be universally considered as indeed a “problem.” True, our self-interest may actually involve either the benefit or harm of others, but for an egoist, such may not be the case – nor can he even accept the possibility of the existence of such fact. A given drop-line here would be when Rachels asked to stop the debate after the example of a man wanting to burn a store with everybody else in it. The reason being is because there will forever be endless discussions as to whether we do need to be moral or not – such is the cycle of morality and ethics, and forever it will be so.

2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even people they don’t know?

     True, genuine egoists are indeed rare, not to mention that some merely develops such egoism due to emotional depression or other pressures brought to them. I haven’t really known someone who says “I don’t care” and doesn’t regret it later every once in a while, and I really don’t have plans to meet someone as senile as that in the future either.

     Most people indeed care about others, including to those they don’t know. Just simply travel elsewhere and ask for directions. If the majority didn’t care, you wouldn’t be able to reach any of your destinations. Such is how we live, and such, regardless of thesis or notions or theories of moral imperatives, is the way I personally believe it should be.

3. Suppose we define ethical atruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of others and never in one’s own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not?

     Looking at it, to see a world that acts only for the benefit of others can be both moral and immoral. If we were to base it on the prerogative that the circumstance is in such a way wherein one certainly knows what will benefit others and that even the most internal of problems of someone else can be known to him and allow that person to benefit from whatever he’ll do, then such is moral.

     But, suppose the circumstances were different? Suppose one indeed acts for the benefit of others, but lives in the same world that we live in today wherein uncertainties reach even points wherein we fail to even identify what really benefits others and what does not, the result would be hysterical. If one has a tooth ache and people start giving him sweets thinking that his problem is family or what have-you, and what would be the result? An underlying web of problems with regards to relationships on a person-to-person basis – which is why self-interest still needs to exist, for we actually do need to still have that reason to take care not only of others, but for ourselves as well in such a way that we’d be able to help more people in the process.