Analysis of an Article on the Ethical Selfishness of James Rachels

In his paper on Ethical Egoism, James Rachels also goes deeply into the world of psychological egoism, discussing whether or not people always act in their self interest alone. I will also examine the ways the psychological egoist can argue as to why acts of altruism are self-interested, and then I will provide my own argument on the same point. I will next go over two instances of arguments against psychological egoism, including Bishop Joseph Butler’s famous argument with Psychological egoism.

And then, finally, after looking at Bishop’s argument step by step, I will explain as to why Rachels’ school of thought wins out over Bishop Butler’s. Rachels outlines psychological egoism as the idea that people always act in their self interest alone, only trying to fulfill their own happiness.

In the psychological egoist opinion, humans always do what they want to do. The first and most immediate response to this school of thought is that sometimes we are think about other people.

The psychological egoist response to why we do charitable acts is threefold: one, we do them for long term benefit, too, to avoid guilt, and three, to have the ideal afterlife (for those who believe in after life.) Psychological egoists argue that everyone is always acting in their own self interest. No matter what, people will always do what will benefit them best. If an action seems like it is truly charitable, the psychological egoist will most likely say one of three things to prove the action is, in fact, not charitable.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified

Proficient in: Altruism

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

One way is that the person is being charitable for long term benefit.

For example, if someone makes a donation to a charity, it may give them a tax reduction in the long run. The second way is to avoid the guilt of not helping others who need assistance. There is an objection to this though, as having guilt implies a sense of responsibility to help and care about others, which makes the guilt avoidance claim almost worthless. Finally, the idea that one does charitable acts to get into heaven only applies to people who believe in the afterlife. For those who act charitably that do not truly believe in heaven, one must find another reason as to why they perform charitable acts. I believe that altruism, in its own definition, is self serving. As members of the human race, our most basic form is that of an animal. The single goal animals have throughout their entire lives is survival.

Everything they do is so that they may live and support their species through procreation and life. By helping other human beings thought donations to charity or giving a couple bucks to someone on the street, we are helping others from our own species survive. That is self serving, because our goal, as the human race, is mass survival, just like it is for a school of fish swimming together do confuse a predator, or a pack of wolves or lions working and hunting together to survive. By helping other humans, we are in turn helping the human race, which, helps us. There are many potential objections to psychological egoism. Francis Hutcheson writes: “An honest farmer will tell you, that he studies the preservation and happiness of his children, and loves them without any design of good to himself” (1725/1991, p. 277, Raphael sect. 327) This is a common and simple argument against psychological egoism.

Psychological egoism just doesn’t seem right. People seem to clearly put others needs ahead of their own, like a mother and her child, or, as Hutcheson says, a farmer protecting and nurturing his children. Bishop Joseph Butler provides what is probably the most famous argument against psychological egoism. Butler argues that when we desire something, we are in fact willing for that thing, and not the selfish happiness that comes with it. His argument was that people’s pleasure upon attaining something is not because they are trying to fulfill only their happiness, but because they obtained what they wanted.

He writes: That all particular appetites and passions are towards external things themselves, distinct from the pleasure arising from them, is manifested from hence; that there could not be this pleasure, were it not for that prior suitableness between the object and the passion: there could be no enjoyment or delight from one thing more than another, from eating food more than from swallowing a stone, if there were not an affection or appetite to one thing more than another. (1726/1991, Sermon XI, p. 365) Joshua May, from the University of Alabama Birmingham, outlines Butler’s argument as follows: Sometimes people benefit from helping others (e.g. experience pleasure). Sometimes such benefit presupposes a desire for what generated it (e.g. food), not for the resulting benefit. So sometimes people desire things other than self-interest.

Therefore: Psychological egoism is false. Bishop may not have cleared nor consciously argued against egoism, but he does do it logically. This makes his arguments against egoism, one of the most profound and well known, as a counter argument against it is difficult. Part of the reason of this may be that few can actually understand what he is arguing. May sums it up clearly and accurately. The issue with Butler’s argument is that even though the first three points he makes are true, they not only do not logically lead to his conclusion, but they are also completely within bounds of psychological egoism.

Therefore, he hasn’t proven psychological egoism false at all. May writes: Even if the experience of pleasure sometimes presupposes a desire for the pleasurable object, it is still left open whether the desire for what generated the pleasure is merely instrumental to a desire for pleasure (or some other form of self-interest). Consider the following causal chain, using “→” to mean “caused” (see Sober & Wilson 1998, p. 278): Desire for food → Eating → Pleasure This very clearly proves that Butler does not, in fact, prove psychological egoism to be false. His conclusion does not agree with his premises. The desire for food ultimately, does lead to pleasure. The next time you desire food, you understand that the consequence of eating food is pleasure. Why does a female praying mantis kill her mate after they have procreated? Because his life is no longer as important as the many potential lives the female praying mantis is carrying with her. The male mantis’ best use is as food for the female and the offspring.

By becoming food, he is helping his future children, and, all of “mantiskind.” If altruism is “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others” (Merriam Webster Online), then the mantis is being altruistic by sacrificing himself. Simultaneously, he is serving his own self interest! His genes are being passed on, and his species is more powerful because of his offspring. The same thing applies to a mother sacrificing herself for her child. If her goal, in the most basic sense, is to have her child survive so that the human race may benefit from what the child has to offer and have her genes passed on, by sacrificing herself, she is in reality doing what is in her best interest. Once you have children, your goal and highest interest is to protect them, so anything to protect them is, therefore, in your best interest, and, an act of self interest. If we look at Hutcheson’s example of the farmer, on the surface, it seems that they only care for the well being of their child. But, in reality after a second look, we see that by protecting his children, the farmer is ensuring his bloodline be passed on.

By having a child grow to adulthood, not only does the farmer’s genes get passed on, but many of his ideals, morals, and ideas are passed on. By having your child survive, so does a large part of you. By having a child survive, part of you survives too. Therefore, by protecting your child, you are protecting yourself. It is clear that my argument for psychological egoism is not perfect, nor infallible. But, it does bring some interesting ideas to the table about what altruism really is, and the question of whether or not psychological egoism is, in fact, true. When you really reflect on examples of altruism, many seem to be closer to psychological egoism than maybe a parent on the surface. Many believe altruism and egoism to be polar opposites, when in reality, they are not so different at all.