Psychological Egoism

“Egoism is the normative idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively” (Rachels 77). In other words, what makes one’s actions moral is if they are acting in their own self-interest only. It is the radical view that states that one’s only duty is to promote one’s own self-interest. This theory does not suggest that one should act in their own interest as well as others best interest, but, according to Rachels, there is only one principle to follow and that

The Ego Centric Problem states that the knowledge we have gained over the period of our lives in entrenched so deep that it prevents us from learning new things. Descartes states that “if we can only be certain of the contents of our consciousness, then how are we ever to gain knowledge of the world that lies beyond our minds. This brings up a good point, if we already have knowledge, does that knowledge have any influence on us that would hinder us to learn new things.

     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!

Stuck in the soul’s alluring ruse, the Egoist at first ignores actuality. Only upon harmonizing with

Derek Parfit's views on personal identity and the Ego and Bundle Theory are all summarized in his article “Divided Minds and the Nature of Persons”. In his article, Parfit explains the distinction between Ego theory and Bundle theory and provides several arguments against Ego Theory. Although it proves to be very difficult to believe the Bundle Theory, Parfit’s critique is convincing and well thought out.

When having good experiences, most people, if asked, would claim that they feel happy. However, if one decided to ask Martha Nussbaum, author of “Who is the Happy Warrior? Philosophy Poses Questions to Psychology,” she would most likely respond that she was feeling pleasured. In her article, she draws a restrictive line between pleasure and happiness. She introduces the viewpoints of many intellectuals who have spoken on the definition of happiness, and then offers her own opinions in regards to theirs. Her thoughts generally align with those of Aristotle, Plato, and the ancient Greek thinkers – the very ones she spent much of her higher education studying. Her main ideas, that happiness is too complex to be concretely defined and that pleasure is a feeling that we may experience while doing certain things, are well-explained and supported. She offers the idea that happiness is not an emotion – rather, it is a state of being that we should all hope to attain as a result of self-reflection. Nussbaum continually counters the beliefs proposed by psychologists, like the notion that happiness is a one-note feeling, or the concept that happiness is only influenced by positive emotions. In my essay, I will explain how Martha Nussbaum’s explanation of the complexities of happiness is superior, as well as how the ideas of two psychologists, Sonja Lyubomirsky and Daniel Gilbert, are faulty and disreputable. However, it is important to note that just because Nussbaum is the least wrong

70) . Behind every action that a person makes is an underlying question about what that person will get out of the action. According to Rachels, however, this remains an issue of human psychology as opposed to being one of ethics. That being said, psychological egoism does have serious costs for human morality. Should psychological egoism actually be correct, then it would mean that all of society is composed of selfish individuals who care only for their own gain; it would therefore be fruitless to discuss what people should be doing.

Without a distinct framework, ethical egoism fails as a moral theory to assist moral decision making because it endorses the animalistic nature of humanity, fails to provide a viable solution to a conflict of interest, and is proved to be an evolutionary unstable moral strategy.

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

Freud said that the Ego is the mediator between the Id and Superego and the outside world. For the Ego to do its job, it has to delay the desires of the Id until it is socially acceptable to give the Id the needs. So our conscious-driven Ego is a balance of the Id and Superego, evening out our primal needs

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

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.

Psychological Egoism is a descriptive claim that humans by nature are selfish and their actions are motivated by some kind of selfish desire (Kay, 1997) .

The ego is the mediator between the id and the circumstances of the external world to aid their interaction. The ego represents reason in contrast to the id. Freud called the ego ich, which translates to English as “I”. The ego follows the reality principal. The ego does not exist independently of the id. The ego exists to help the id, and is constantly striving to bring about satisfaction of the id’s instincts. If the ego fails to keep a balance with the id and superego, a person may have difficulty

“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.