Egoism Vs Egoism

Humanistic conceptions of personality focus on our own natural progression towards achieving one’s full potential, having a holistic approach. Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) believes that growth and behaviour is motivated by a number of needs ranging from basic to psychological needs. He uses a hierarchy, commonly depicted as a five-tier pyramid in which the bottom 4 levels represent our deficit needs, shown in figure 1 below. Once the individual’s physiological needs are met, they may move to the next and so on. After all deficit needs have been met, an individual is capable of achieving self-actualisation. According to Maslow, fulfilling this need means reaching one’s highest potential and truly understanding one’s self.

Philosophers have debated for centuries the question “Are humans are selfish or selfless?” There are two main arguments for debating human nature, ethical egoists and ethical altruists. Ethical egoists believe that “even though we can act in others’ interests because we are concerned for others, we ought always to act in our own interest” (Solomon et al 2012 p. 460). Ethical altruists believe quite the opposite; ethical altruism is the belief that “people ought to act with each other’s interests in mind” (Solomon et al 2012 p. 461). In discussing the four theories, psychological egoism, psychological altruism, ethical egoism, and ethical altruism, with my husband, there was not a clear dividing line for whether humans are selfish or selfless in nature. After much debate, we concluded that humans are born ethical egoists; however, ethical altruists are made through proper training, care, and nurture.

There are two basic kinds of egoism, there is ethical egoism and there is psychological egoism. These two different forms of egoism are different because ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that what is moral is to be done in self-interest. This is different from psychological egoism which states specifically that people will only act in their own self-interest. Ethical egoism is broken up into two forms. There is act egoism and Rule egoism. Act egoism says

David Shoemaker provides two theories of egoism in the text--psychological theory and ethical theory. Psychological egoism is the claim that all actions are done solely for the sake of one’s own self-interest. Ethical egoism simply states that all actions ought to be done for the sake of one’s own self interests. Shoemaker elaborates stating ethical egoism is the more attractive theory.

     The descriptive claim made by Psychological Egoists is that humans, by nature, are motivated only by self-interest. Any act, no matter how altruistic it may seem on the outside is actually only a disguise for a selfish desire such as recognition, avoiding guilt, reward or sense of personal ‘goodness’ or morality. For example, Mother Teresa is just using the poor for her own long-term spiritual gain. Being a universal claim, it could falter with a single counterexample. And being that I believe this claim to be bunk I will tell you why!

“People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what, do or should they act—for themselves, for God, or for the good of the planet?” (Moseley) An egoist would argue that one acts for one’s own self. More specifically, an ethical egoist is one who thrives to improve ones own self being, with much respect to morality. Ethical Egoism is the theory that one should pursue his or her own interest above all the rest. It is the idea that all persons should act from their own self interest in relation to morality.

Ethical Egoism is a normative claim; it believes that individuals should always in their best interest. Another view of ethical egoism is that a person should act according to his own self-interest even if it goes against the values and beliefs of others.

What if you only thought about yourself every day? What if you made no attempts to help a friend of family member in need? What if you did what was best for you and only you? Would you be able to live with yourself? The views of a psychological egoist have clear answers to the previous questions. A psychological egoist believe in just those sorts of behaviors. While in contrasting view of an ethical egoist believe in what we ought to do. These views were both demonstrated in the film “Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Each of those views make an impact on how one lives their lives, and the circumstances associated with each view. Taking a look at the differences and similarities of psychological egoism and ethical egoism is the first

Psychological egoism is the view that everyone always acts selfishly. It describes human nature as being wholly self-centered and self-motivated. Psychological egoism is different from ethical egoism in their “direction of fit” to the world. Psychological ego-ism is a factual theory. It aims to fit the world. In the world is not how psychological ego-ism says it is because someone acts unselfishly, then something is wrong with psycho-logical egoism. In my opinion this argument is completely wrong and unsound.

2. Egoism is the consequentialist theory that an action is right when it promotes the individual’s best interests. Proponents of this theory base their view on the alleged fact that human beings are, by nature, selfish (the doctrine of psychological egoism). Critics of egoism argue that (a) psychological egoism is

On the other hand, ethical egoism is a theory that prescribes moral obligation, where all people should be motivated out of self interest (Rachels, 2003, p. 70). This means that every person ought to act in a way that is best for him/herself. Ethical egoism claims that it is moral for all of an individual’s actions to be based on self-interest, without concerning him/herself with the interests of others. In fact, this thought may be continued by stating that altruism is, therefore, personally hindering and even demeaning (Brink, 1997, p. 122). Hence, ethical egoism must consequently mean that actions taken in an individual’s self-interest are moral actions, and actions taken that are not self-beneficial to an individual are immoral and should, as a result, be avoided.

Two examples or branches of consequentialism are egoism and utilitarianism. The definition of utilitarianism is simply, doing the most good for the most people. The definition of egoism is the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; selfishness. Egoism is simply about you and you’re self-interest compared to utilitarianism is looking at others interests. There are pros and cons to each branch; however I personally think egoism is the better model. Both represent or contain an aspect of ethics but, egoism I believe is reflected or more related to the average person in everyday life.

Ethical egoism claims that all our actions can be reduced to self-interest. This is a controversial moral theory which sometimes can be detrimental. Without a well-defined framework of the nature of self-interest, ethical egoism enlarges the animalistic nature of humanity in which can result in unfavorable consequences. Ethical egoism also fails to provide a solution when a conflict of interest arises. By only acting out of one’s self

In his argument, Hinman (2007) asserts that every action that people engage in is motivated by self-interests or pleasure or direct benefits the agent or to avoid living with guilt in the future. This is the nature of human beings. Even the most altruistic action is in actual sense motivated by the egocentric desire of the actor (Hugh, 1898).

The study of morality is performed through descriptive approach or philosophical approach consisting of normative or prescriptive ethics. One approach says that people should always act in the own self- interest (Individual Ethical Egoism), its premise being everyone should act to my own best interest. There also are those who believe that a person should act in their own interest only (Personal Ethical Egoism) and the third belief is (Universal Ethical Egoism) based on the premise that everyone should act in their own self-interest regardless of others. I assume that you can see the glaring flaws in each of these theories.