Psychological Egoism Research Paper
Psychological egoism is the theory that voluntary actions are always motivated by a reward to oneself, whether directly or indirectly. Some people immediately object to the theory because there are plenty of cases where people help others when there seems to be no reward. A proponent of psychological egoism would stress that there seems to be no reward, and that the person is in fact benefiting in some way. In many cases, the proponent of psychological egoism would offer that the "good feeling" a person gets after helping someone is the reward they were seeking, and thus the reason they helped the other person. Another possibility is that a person will help someone else because he or she sees some future benefit for helping, such as future
…show more content…
protection. Ultimately, psychological egoism sees any kind of voluntary action as selfish in nature. Hobbes believed that men with complete freedom, in the absence of government or a police force, are in the "State of Nature." The state of nature is an amoral state in which there is no just and unjust because there is nothing to hold men to such standards. It is a state of complete chaos in a world of moderate scarcity. Because there are no rules for morality, the drive for self-preservation reigns supreme in our actions. Thus, if two men independently discover a food source sufficient for one, they will inevitably fight over the food. In the absence of a moral code, it is likely that one man will kill the other to ensure his own life and meal. Not only does he get the food, but the other competitor is no longer able to challenge him in the future and the victor has secured his self-preservation for the time being. Hobbes argues that in the state of nature, men seek power in order to acquire and protect objects of their desires and ensure security from others. The easiest method of obtaining power in the state of nature is violence, because, according to Hobbes, men are roughly equal in strength and intelligence in the sense that the weakest is strong enough to kill the strongest under the right conditions. If you think someone is going to kill you or take what you have, you will attack preemptively to protect your desire for self-preservation. Killing the would-be attacker is a voluntary action motivated by self-interest and Hobbes argues that in the "voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself."
In the state of nature, every man has a right to everything as long as he is able to protect it. If everyone is also acting in self-interest, conflicts will inevitably arise when multiple people desire the same object, be it power, food, mate, etc. Without an outside power to prove and punish wrongdoings, people will likely choose violence to attain or protect desires.
The state of nature is a state of war of all against all, regardless of the validity of psychological egoism. Without a power capable of creating laws and enforcing "just" punishment, people who desire some object in another's possession will seek to "kill, subdue, supplant, or repel" the person. Other people will not be able to secure their livelihood or possessions unless they "kill, subdue, supplant, or repel" the people who want what they have. The reason the state of nature leads to such war is not psychological egoism but the absence of laws and protection. Even if psychological egoism is false, enough individuals will still act in self-interest and, in the absence of a moral code, will engage in behavior detrimental to others and ultimately lead to conflict and war. Psychological egoism intensifies the state of war of all against all but is not necessary.
A common criticism of the theory of psychological egoism is the presence of seemingly altruistic acts, that is, people acting in a manner that does not appear to benefit them. A common example is the soldier that jumps onto a grenade to save the lives of his comrades. Does it really benefit the soldier to sacrifice his life for his comrades? Surely sacrificing himself does not help the soldier in terms of self-preservation. This is when a proponent of psychological egoism would argue that even though the soldier's action seems altruistic in nature, the act is still ultimately motivated by self-interest, and that the soldier sacrificed himself because it gave him some sort of good feeling. It is impossible to prove, though, that the soldier does in fact get a good feeling from sacrificing himself because there is no way to measure such a feeling.
Some people feel the soldier example or any other act of altruism provides a counterexample to psychological egoism, and since it is a theory on human nature, even one counterexample disproves the theory.
I can see how, at first glance, the example of the soldier seems to disprove psychological egoism. The soldier does not receive any kind of permanent reward nor does he protect his desire for self-preservation. And even though you cannot measure feelings, does the soldier not have them? When I think of "some good to himself," I cannot help but wonder what is meant by some good. Does the reward for an action need to be something tangible? The problem arises because we are not in the state of nature, but rather, have been reared in a society that values human life. We are taught important moral values from childhood on, helping form a conscience that tells us right from wrong. A common value is that we should protect loved ones, including friends and comrades. The soldier then, is able to act without thinking because the action complies with the moral code the soldier has developed in his life. Even though he cannot enjoy it, the action is motivated by his desire to not allow his comrades to die. This desire, although altruistic on the surface, can be seen from a self-interested perspective if you factor in the compliance to a moral code. Just because an act is motivated by self-interest does not mean that it cannot benefit others as well. Psychological egoism can be defended from the counterexamples of altruism by several methods. One defense, as stated before, is the compliance to some sort of moral code that has been established within individuals of a society. Also, a person may perform an apparent act of altruism because they expect to benefit in the future. For example, a person could call the owner of a lost wallet, not to truly help the other person, but in hopes of a reward for the good deed. This is because a helping act creates a debt
that, according to Hobbes, translates into power gained over a fellow man. This defense, however, is not applicable in the example of the soldier, because the soldier cannot benefit from power if he has died. I am inclined to believe that the soldier benefits from the first method, the compliance to a moral code. Because of his moral sense, even without conscious thought, the soldier can act to save his comrades. Even if the feeling is fleeting, the soldier should feel comfort in acting in accordance to his morals. I have been to Juarez, Mexico five times on mission trips by my church to build homes for homeless families. The first time I went, I did so because I had often heard from others that mission trips were fun. It was a self-interested motivation because I wanted to have a good time. When I started working hard though, I did not feel I was having fun. Instead, I found the work exhausting and not rewarding for myself. When the house was completed however, I did feel as though I had benefited from building it. Did it directly benefit me to build the house for the family? No. Did I expect something in return from the family, creating a sense of power? No. Helping the family, however, did give me a good feeling by acting in accordance to my moral values (in this case, the wealthy should not turn their backs on the poor). As I said, I've now been there five times. Did I come back simply for the reason of helping more families? Or was I merely seeking the good feeling? After much thought, I feel that my altruistic act was motivated by self-interest. If it had not been for self-interest, I would not have gone in the first place because I merely wanted to have a good time. I also would not have returned without self-interested motivation because performing the hard manual labor is unappealing enough to make me not help those people unless I benefited from that good feeling. As I try to disprove psychological egoism with altruistic acts, I conclude that there is a degree of selfishness and self-interested motivation in even the most altruistic acts, and therefore such acts are not enough to disprove the theory.
protection. Ultimately, psychological egoism sees any kind of voluntary action as selfish in nature. Hobbes believed that men with complete freedom, in the absence of government or a police force, are in the "State of Nature." The state of nature is an amoral state in which there is no just and unjust because there is nothing to hold men to such standards. It is a state of complete chaos in a world of moderate scarcity. Because there are no rules for morality, the drive for self-preservation reigns supreme in our actions. Thus, if two men independently discover a food source sufficient for one, they will inevitably fight over the food. In the absence of a moral code, it is likely that one man will kill the other to ensure his own life and meal. Not only does he get the food, but the other competitor is no longer able to challenge him in the future and the victor has secured his self-preservation for the time being. Hobbes argues that in the state of nature, men seek power in order to acquire and protect objects of their desires and ensure security from others. The easiest method of obtaining power in the state of nature is violence, because, according to Hobbes, men are roughly equal in strength and intelligence in the sense that the weakest is strong enough to kill the strongest under the right conditions. If you think someone is going to kill you or take what you have, you will attack preemptively to protect your desire for self-preservation. Killing the would-be attacker is a voluntary action motivated by self-interest and Hobbes argues that in the "voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself."
In the state of nature, every man has a right to everything as long as he is able to protect it. If everyone is also acting in self-interest, conflicts will inevitably arise when multiple people desire the same object, be it power, food, mate, etc. Without an outside power to prove and punish wrongdoings, people will likely choose violence to attain or protect desires.
The state of nature is a state of war of all against all, regardless of the validity of psychological egoism. Without a power capable of creating laws and enforcing "just" punishment, people who desire some object in another's possession will seek to "kill, subdue, supplant, or repel" the person. Other people will not be able to secure their livelihood or possessions unless they "kill, subdue, supplant, or repel" the people who want what they have. The reason the state of nature leads to such war is not psychological egoism but the absence of laws and protection. Even if psychological egoism is false, enough individuals will still act in self-interest and, in the absence of a moral code, will engage in behavior detrimental to others and ultimately lead to conflict and war. Psychological egoism intensifies the state of war of all against all but is not necessary.
A common criticism of the theory of psychological egoism is the presence of seemingly altruistic acts, that is, people acting in a manner that does not appear to benefit them. A common example is the soldier that jumps onto a grenade to save the lives of his comrades. Does it really benefit the soldier to sacrifice his life for his comrades? Surely sacrificing himself does not help the soldier in terms of self-preservation. This is when a proponent of psychological egoism would argue that even though the soldier's action seems altruistic in nature, the act is still ultimately motivated by self-interest, and that the soldier sacrificed himself because it gave him some sort of good feeling. It is impossible to prove, though, that the soldier does in fact get a good feeling from sacrificing himself because there is no way to measure such a feeling.
Some people feel the soldier example or any other act of altruism provides a counterexample to psychological egoism, and since it is a theory on human nature, even one counterexample disproves the theory.
I can see how, at first glance, the example of the soldier seems to disprove psychological egoism. The soldier does not receive any kind of permanent reward nor does he protect his desire for self-preservation. And even though you cannot measure feelings, does the soldier not have them? When I think of "some good to himself," I cannot help but wonder what is meant by some good. Does the reward for an action need to be something tangible? The problem arises because we are not in the state of nature, but rather, have been reared in a society that values human life. We are taught important moral values from childhood on, helping form a conscience that tells us right from wrong. A common value is that we should protect loved ones, including friends and comrades. The soldier then, is able to act without thinking because the action complies with the moral code the soldier has developed in his life. Even though he cannot enjoy it, the action is motivated by his desire to not allow his comrades to die. This desire, although altruistic on the surface, can be seen from a self-interested perspective if you factor in the compliance to a moral code. Just because an act is motivated by self-interest does not mean that it cannot benefit others as well. Psychological egoism can be defended from the counterexamples of altruism by several methods. One defense, as stated before, is the compliance to some sort of moral code that has been established within individuals of a society. Also, a person may perform an apparent act of altruism because they expect to benefit in the future. For example, a person could call the owner of a lost wallet, not to truly help the other person, but in hopes of a reward for the good deed. This is because a helping act creates a debt
that, according to Hobbes, translates into power gained over a fellow man. This defense, however, is not applicable in the example of the soldier, because the soldier cannot benefit from power if he has died. I am inclined to believe that the soldier benefits from the first method, the compliance to a moral code. Because of his moral sense, even without conscious thought, the soldier can act to save his comrades. Even if the feeling is fleeting, the soldier should feel comfort in acting in accordance to his morals. I have been to Juarez, Mexico five times on mission trips by my church to build homes for homeless families. The first time I went, I did so because I had often heard from others that mission trips were fun. It was a self-interested motivation because I wanted to have a good time. When I started working hard though, I did not feel I was having fun. Instead, I found the work exhausting and not rewarding for myself. When the house was completed however, I did feel as though I had benefited from building it. Did it directly benefit me to build the house for the family? No. Did I expect something in return from the family, creating a sense of power? No. Helping the family, however, did give me a good feeling by acting in accordance to my moral values (in this case, the wealthy should not turn their backs on the poor). As I said, I've now been there five times. Did I come back simply for the reason of helping more families? Or was I merely seeking the good feeling? After much thought, I feel that my altruistic act was motivated by self-interest. If it had not been for self-interest, I would not have gone in the first place because I merely wanted to have a good time. I also would not have returned without self-interested motivation because performing the hard manual labor is unappealing enough to make me not help those people unless I benefited from that good feeling. As I try to disprove psychological egoism with altruistic acts, I conclude that there is a degree of selfishness and self-interested motivation in even the most altruistic acts, and therefore such acts are not enough to disprove the theory.