From the moment you are born, you are being influenced. Influenced on what to wear, how to do your hair, how to speak, whom to associate with, etc. All of these criteria make up who you are. These influences determine how you think and what you believe. With all these influences in our daily lives we inevitably do actions throughout the day, and our actions have consequences. Some consequences are good and some are bad, but based on our actions are there ulterior motives involved? Do we do things to solely benefit ourselves or do we sometimes do things to help out others and the greater good of mankind? These questions bring to the surface the topics of egoism, psychological and ethical, and altruism.
Ethical egoism is the normative theory that the promotion of one's own good is in accordance with morality. In the strong version, it is held that it is always moral to promote one's own good, and it is never moral not to promote it. In the weak version, it is said that although it is always moral to promote one's own good, it is not necessarily never moral to not. That is, there may be conditions in which the avoidance of personal interest may be a moral action.
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!
Psychological egoism is the belief that a person’s actions are prompted by their own selfishness. If every action in the world was done, only to fulfill one’s own selfish aspirations, then there would be no purely altruistic deeds. Moral egoism is the belief that people should do what is in their best self-interest; however, they have a tendency to carry out actions due to their genuineness. Based on its definition, morality is doing something because it is the “right” thing to do. Psychological egoism creates a threat to morality, because if a person is acting kindly, not because it is right, but because he seeks self-gain, then morality is non-existent.
Occasionally there are times when it is more beneficial to do what is necessary or useful to you as opposed to doing what's right. Huck Finn is met with a similar situation when he is stopped on his raft and he is forced to conjure up a lie to defend Jim. After the situation has been resolved, Huck decides that he "wouldn't bother no more about it, but after this always do whichever come handiest at the time".
Aristotle emphasizes that this mean can only be found through the use of reason. Reason decides which emotions to put into practice to achieve balance. The golden mean advises against excess or deficiency, but it does not refute emotions. The golden mean directs people on how and to what extent they should allow their reason to govern
Ray Bradbury uses Ethical Egoism in two stories, Marionettes, Inc. and The Veldt. Bradbury creates each character to act with self-interest while putting himself in place of those characters and acts in self-interest for them as well as himself.
Psychological egoism is a theory that suggests that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. The theory claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves stand to gain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. Psychological egoism is a non-normative or descriptive theory in that it only makes claims about how things are and not how they ought to be. The theory is, however, related to several other normative forms of egoism, such as ethical egoism and rational egoism. The following essay seeks to determine the practicality of psychological egoism as a
When looking at the ideas of egoisms, two major views come out in the form of psychological and ethical egoism. While both of the views hinge on the idea that everybody acts in their own self-interest, the major separator is that ethical egoist views their pursuit of their personal gain morally right (106), even if they have to kill or steal for it, compared to the psychosocial egoist who just state that the only thing that motivates humans is their self-interest while the moral standings stay the same (91) 1. And while some ethical egoists and also psychosocial egoists it is not prerequisite. The major issue is the definition of psycho egoism, that the only motivation of humans is their self-interest denying altruism, this ideal is false.
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.
Psychological egoism is the view that people are always selfish. When was the last time you did a good deed? Did you do it for its own sake, or for your own? The egoist says that all of us are necessarily self-regarding. I shall argue that this view is incorrect.
The theory that we should only do the actions that bring about the best consequences is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialism is correct because if the action taken creates the most possible good, then that action must be the right action. Consequentialism leads to the right action because the right action is the
The theory of psychological egoism is indeed plausible. The meaning of plausible in the context of this paper refers to the validity or the conceivability of the theory in question, to explain the nature and motivation of human behavior (Hinman, 2007). Human actions are motivated by the satisfaction obtained after completing a task that they are involved in. For example, Mother Teresa was satisfied by her benevolent actions and activities that she spent her life doing. As Hinman (2007) points out, she was likely to reduce in activity if she experienced any dissatisfaction in her endeavors.
“Nothing in excess.” This Doric saying situated in the foreground of the temple at Delphi, is one of the earliest elaborations of the doctrine known as the Golden Mean. It was this one saying that sparked the birth of an ethical principle, in which the concepts are tenfold. In the aftermath of reading this excerpt, scholars alike have interpreted this statement, gradually contributing to the pantheon of perceptions that revolve around the connotation of the Mean. First reflected in Socrates’ teachings, the Mean was passed down by Plato, and then utterly revolutionized by Aristotle. Utilizing cross-fertilization, it eventually spread throughout the known Earth. (Aristotle on the Concept of the Golden Mean) Simply, the Golden Mean is the the belief in moderation between two extremes, and it reaffirms the balance that we, as a thriving species, need in life. The golden mean is the most influential axiom that was developed by the Ancient Greeks because it is prevalent in many Greek myths, was theorized by Aristotle, and has influenced the livelihood of people in the Western World.
Growing up in my family taught me that honesty is the best policy. When I would get into trouble as a child I would often try to lie to my mom thinking that would save me from being punished. I soon learned that lying would only get me into more trouble than I was already. Honesty has given me the reputation of