Psychological Egoism Theory Essay

Psychological egoism is the interpretation that humans are always inspired by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. Psychological egoism, which was widely recognized by psychologists and philosophers states that all human actions are motivated by selfish needs to benefit themselves. According to psychological egoists true altruism does not exist because the consequence of such an act leads to an increase in personal happiness. However, Joel Feinberg does not agree with that theory and in his essay he disagreed with the thesis that altruism

In a society where the concept of ‘self’ is removed and ‘selflessness’ is the moral good, the pursuit and attainment of personal happiness is evil. Individuals seeking happiness live a tortured existence; filled with persecution and guilt. “We, Equality 7-2521, were not happy in those years in the Home of the Students. It was not that the learning was too hard for us. It was that the learning was too easy. This is a great sin, to be born with a head which is too quick. It is not good to be different from our brothers, but it is evil to be superior to them. The Teachers told us so, and they frowned when they looked upon us.” (Rand 4) Equality 7-2521 struggles with the fact that he has attributes that set him aside from the rest of the collective. In a society of equals, there

Another example of how altruism can be viewed in today’s society can be seen in the works of Mother Teresa and her plethora of altruistic acts throughout the globe. Although her focus was in India where she persued her novitiate (training), her organization has opened over 500 centers around the world helping the dying and the destitute (Moore 2002, pg. x). She took in the “untouchables” of society and gave them care and made sure that they were comfortable. Mother Teresa is often used as the benchmark when determining whether a selfless act is truly altruistic.

     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!

al., P.177). We must lessen our pursuit for self-gratification with our obligation to community. Bellah et, al writes "The self-interest demanded by the individualistic pursuit of success needs to be balanced by voluntary concern for others" (Bellah et. al., P.199).

“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.

Effective altruism is all about selflessness and doing the most good in order to help other’s welfare and quality of life. A crucial component of effective altruism, as Peter Singer writes in The Most Good You Can Do, is “living modestly and donating a large part of their income – often more than the traditional tenth, or tithe – to the most effective charities” (Singer 4). However, many argue with Singer’s standards and altruists should take into consideration that money is not the only factor that makes altruism valuable as there are other strategies that increase quality of life. People who do not devote a large sum of their money to the practice of effective altruism should not feel selfish because there are many other ways to be an effective

Ethical Egoism is a normative theory which focuses on individualistic consequences (Burgess-Jackson, 2013). Everyone is said to be motivated by their own self-interest, as it is their moral obligation to do what is best for themselves (Rachels, 2003). How an individual ought to behave is determined by whether the action creates the highest net utility for themselves (Rachels, 2003). In Thomas

In this paper I will discuss Peter Singer’s argument that it is our duty to aid to those in need, and John Arthur’s argument that we have competitive intuitions that have precedence over our duty to aid the needy. I will then argue that Arthur’s argument is more applicable to human kind as a species, simply due to the fact that human instinct is not capable of fulfilling Singer’s premise.

According to James Rachel, an author of “Elements of Moral Philosophy,” there two main arguments exist against psychological egoism.

There is a certain innate desire to help others, just as others will feel that same fulfillment for returning that aid. At the same time, however, there is also an inherent yearning to seek out one’s own best interest. This brings about a discussion regarding the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. To understand the similarities and differences, one must first understand the two concepts including their natures, as well as their doctrines of motivation.

Although theories that suggest the non-existence of true altruism may be persuasive, it does not explain the reasons for selfless deeds done by famous figures for their love and services to people such as Mother Teresa. Batson (1991) suggested a hypothesis and feels that some people are genuinely concerned about other people’s welfare. According to his empathy-altruism hypothesis, empathic concerns produce altruism motivation and relieving their sufferings is the main priority. This hypothesis is supported by several experiments where participants are typically given an opportunity to help those in need for whom they have been led to different levels of empathic concerns.

A debate encompassing human nature has carried on for centuries, and philosophers throughout history have provided a vast inventory of explanations they deem to be sufficient in understanding the perplex idea of human nature. A question commonly debated regarding human nature is determining whether human beings are naturally self-interested or altruistic. Political philosophers Bernard Mandeville and Francis Hutcheson specifically addressed this question, but each arrived at different conclusions based on personal observation and reasoning. Mandeville, influenced by Hobbesian thought, advocated the belief that human beings were naturally self-interested. Opposing the idea of self-interest,

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

Descriptive egoism holds that for each individual, there is only one ultimate aim survival and the betterment of the sole individual based on their own hierarchical principles.