Реферат: Psychological Egoism Essay Research Paper Psychological Egoism
Psychological Egoism Essay, Research Paper
Psychological Egoism: Every person is oriented towards his (or her) own welfare, and the object of every one of his voluntary actions is
some good to himself.
Janan Savage
Ethics
Psychological egoism is a reflex that every person has to orient themselves toward their own welfare. Through this, it follows that
every one of his (or her) voluntary actions is some good to himself. If someone gives away the last piece of bread to someone else, it is
because they want to look like a better person. Due to the fact that they would give away the last piece of bread.
Human nature is completely and exclusively egoistic. People are entirely selfish and devoid of any genuine feelings of sympathy,
benevolence, or sociability. They are always thinking of themselves in everything they do.
Each individual is preoccupied exclusively with the gratification of personal desires (felicity or happiness).Ones success in maintaining
a continuous flow of gratification is the means of ones happiness.
The object of the voluntary acts of every man is some good to himself. Whenever man renounces his right it is either in consideration
for some right reciprocally transferred to himself, or for some other good he hopes for from the outcome. This presents us with the old
saying: “Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you.”
Social organization originates out of self interest. All society is for gain, or for glory. It is not like we think it is?for love of our
fellows. Instead it is for self preservation. It is a sort of social contract. In a state of nature we are at war with each other and life is
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. In a natural state individuals are in equal powers. Voluntary collective organization is the most
effective way for individuals to utilize their powers.
Man should be allowed the right to use all means or actions to preserve himself. For every man is desirous of what is good to him,
and shuns what is evil, but chiefly the chiefest of natural evil, which is death. The right to bear arms.
In conclusion, I would like to say that??
Psychological Egoism– This is the claim that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest. Any act, no matter how altruistic it
might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (e.g., desire for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness). This
is a descriptive claim about human nature. Since the claim is universal–all acts are motivated by self interest–it could be proven false by
a single counterexample (Weston, rule #11).
It will be difficult to find an action that the psychological egoist will acknowledge as purely altruistic, however. There is almost always
some benefit to ourselves in any action we choose. For example, if I helped my friend out of trouble, I may feel happy afterwards. But is
that happiness the motive for my action or just a result of it? Perhaps the psychological egoist fails to distinguish the beneficial
consequences of an action from the self-interested motivation. After all, why would it make me happy to see my friend out of trouble if I
didn’t already have some prior concern for my friend’s best interest? Wouldn’t that be altruism?
Egoism versus altruism
The second issue I want to explore is egoism versus altruism.
Altruism holds “each man as his brother’s keeper;” in other words, we are each responsible for the health and well-being of others.
Clearly, this is a simple statement of the “safety-net” theory from above. This is incompatible with individualism, yet many people who
are basically individualists uphold altruism as the standard of morality. What’s going on?
The problem is wide-spread confusion over the meanings of “altruism” and “egoism.”
The first confusion is to confound altruism with kindness, generosity, and helping other people. Altruism demands more than kindness: it
demands sacrifice. The billionaire who contributes $50,000 to a scholarship fund is not acting altruistically; altruism goes beyond simple
charity. Altruism is the grocery bagger who contributes $50,000 to the fund, foregoing his own college education so that others may go.
Parents who spend a fortune to save their dying child are helping another person, but true altruism would demand that the parents spend
their money to save ten other children, sacrificing their own child so that others may live.
The second confusion is to confound selfishness with brutality. The common image of selfishness is the person who runs slip-shod over
people in order to achieve arbitrary desires. We are taught that “selfishness” consists of dishonesty, theft, even bloodshed, usually for the
sake of the whim of the moment.
These two confusions together obscure the possibility of an ethics of non-sacrifice. In this ethics, each man takes responsibility for his
own life and happiness, and lets other people do the same. No one sacrifices himself to others, nor sacrifices others to himself. The key
word in this approach is earn: each person must earn a living, must earn the love and respect of his peers, must earn the self-esteem and
the happiness that make life worth living.
It’s this ethics of non-sacrifice that forms a lasting moral foundation for individualism. It’s an egoistic ethics in that each person acts to
achieve his own happiness. Yet, it’s not the brutality usually ascribed to egoism. Indeed, by rejecting sacrifice as such, it represents a
revolution in thinking on ethics.
Two asides on the topic of egoism. First, just as individualism doesn’t mean being alone, neither does non-sacrificial egoism. Admiration,
friendship, love, good-will, charity, generosity: these are wonderful values that a selfishness person would want as part of his life. But
these values do not require true sacrifice, and thus are not altruistic in the deepest sense of the word.
Second, I question if brutality, the form of selfishness usually ascribed to egoism, is actually in one’s self-interest in practice. Whim
worship, dishonesty, theft, exploitation: I would argue that the truly selfish man rejects these, for he knows that happiness and self-esteem
can’t be stolen at the cost of others: they must be earned through hard work.
If altruism is so bad, and altruism is based on mysticism, then what is Rand’s alternative, and what does it have to do with reason? For
her own ethics, Rand started at the very beginning: why do you need ethics anyway, she asks, what is it for? Her answer to this question
can be analyzed in two parts.
First, Rand said that values ought to be objective facts about reality. She noted that life is conditional, and that it requires a specific
course of action to maintain. She concluded that something can be good or bad only to a living organism acting to survive: the good
furthers life, the bad hinders it. Second, Rand noted that humans, unlike other animals, need to discover their values. Consider the life of
a squirrel: collect nuts, hibernate, eat nuts, repeat. Not very exciting. Animals just repeat a built-in cycle of action over and over. The
drama of human life is that people have to decide what action to take, and their decisions have real, long-range consequences.
How do you decide? Reason. Values are objective facts about reality, and your means for knowing reality is reason. Reason is the
fundamental value because it’s your means of discovering your other values. What do you do with reason? In large part, produce the
goods needed to survive. Unlike animals that simply take what they need from the environment, humans produce what they need. But, as
Francis Bacon once said in a quote Rand was fond of repeating: “nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” Through reasoning, people
can come to understand and harness the forces of nature.
So reason and production are the primary values of the Objectivist ethics. Rand summed it up this way:
Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is
given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action.
He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron-without a
knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.
But to think is an act of choice…. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are
not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue
of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is
your means of survival-so that for you, who are human being, the question “to be or not to be” is the question “to think or not to think.”
You need ethics because you need values to survive, and you can only discover those values through a volitional process of reason. Ethics,
to Rand, was “a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions-the choices and actions which determine the purpose and the course of
his life.”
Given that Rand held that values are rooted in the individual’s struggle to survive, egoism follows naturally. As an ethical theory, egoism
holds that the primary beneficiary of an action should be the actor. The primary goal of each individual should be to act to achieve
personal happiness. The happiness of family and friends are important to the egoist, but only in so far as it gives pleasure in return.
Being around a bunch of happy, mentally healthy people is a real joy; being around a bunch of complainers isn’t.
That selfishness implies acting for your own sake is usually understood; often misunderstood, however, is that this does not reveal which
actions are, in fact, in your self interest. Rand rejected the view that lying to, stealing from, and subjugating others is acting “selfishly;”
she held that these activities in fact are not values-that they do not lead to a happy life.
Rand listed a number of important values-productivity, honesty, pride-that make up the good life. An important one in understanding that
selfishness does not involve preying on others is independence.
Independence has two aspects. The first is mental: you must think for yourself, you must come to your own conclusions, and you must
follow those conclusions into action. You must never subordinate your own grasp of reality to anything: society, peers, tradition,
authority. Howard Roark, the hero of The Fountainhead, is the symbol of this.
The second aspect of independence is existential: you must embrace the law of causality in your own life. You must take responsibility
for your actions, which means: you must take the responsibility for achieving your own life and for all the actions you take in doing so.
This is a two-way street: you get credit for the good you do and get to keep the benefits, and you get blamed for the bad and are
expected to accept the consequences.
It is this noble concept of independence-the man who thinks for himself and acts for himself and holds himself accountable for what he
does-that Rand held as the truly selfish life.
A final point about Rand’s egoism is that it rejects the need for sacrifice. Traditionally we’ve been given the choice of living for others
(which is altruism) or expecting others to live for us (which is called “selfishness”). Rand identified a third alternative: let each man live
for his own sake, neither “sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself.” Rand held that if (and only if) people act morally and
selfishly as she defined it, there is a harmony of interests among men that makes peace, benevolence, and, ultimately, general prosperity
possible.