Rachels Chapter 6                  ETHICAL EGOISM.

 

The bottom line:

Each person ought to pursue her own self-interest EXCLUSIVELY. Psychological Egoism holds that we can’t help but do so, but according to EE we have a choice, and we should exclusively pursue our own self-interest.

 

Four things that EE does NOT say:

  1. NOT Promote your own interests as well as other peoples interests.
    1. You should focus solely on what is good for you.
  2. NOT Avoid actions that help others.
    1. If such acts would be to your benefit, you’re obligated to do them.
    2. Eg, get the boss tickets to the game and this helps you.
  3. NOT do whatever you want.
    1. We often want things that are not in our interest.
    2. You should do what you want only if it’s in your best interest
    3. E.g. I want 2 kilos of Smarties, but it is not in my interest to have 2 kilos of Smarties.
  4. NOT do what is most pleasurable.
    1. Only if it’s in your best interest

 

 

ETHICAL EGOISM: ARGUMENT-O-RAMA

 

 

3 ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF EE:

 

FIRST:

P1: We ought to do whatever will best promote everyone’s interests.

P2: The best way to promote everyone’s interests is for each of us to pursue our own interests exclusively.

(What are examples that Rachels gives supporting this premise?)

C: Each of us should pursue our own interests exclusively.

 

PROBLEMS:            

  1. At heart this is an altruistic argument because the bottom line is everyone’s interests.
  2. P2 may not be true
    1. Will starving people really mind if we help them?
    2. Is it true that we will bungle hel0ping someone if we give him food is he is hungry?

 

SECOND:

P1: The best moral theory is one that takes the value of the individual seriously.

P2: Ethical egoism is the only moral theory that takes the value of the individual seriously.

C: EE is the best moral theory.

 

PROBLEM: This argument assumes a false dichotomy or at least an extreme view of the alternatives. P2 makes it look like the “ethics of altruism” means that you have to set all of your interests aside for the most trivial requests of others (88).

 

THIRD:

P1: If a theory of morality successfully explains commonsense morality, it ought to be accepted as correct.

P2: EE successfully explains commonsense morality.

C: EE ought to be accepted as correct.

 

There is some impressive support for P2: EE can explain the origins of such moral principles as: Don’t harm others, Don’t lie, Don’t break promises all because in the long run it’s in your best interest not to.

 

PROBLEMS:

  1. Doesn’t explain why we should be moral when it’s not in our best interest.

a.     What are some examples of a moral act not being in our self interest?

  1. Self-interest may not be the only or best reason for ethical prohibitions such as not killing other people.

 

 

3 ARGUMENTS AGAINST EE:

FIRST:

P1: Any acceptable moral theory must provide solutions for conflicts of interest.

P2: EE does not provide solutions for conflicts of interest.

C: EE is not an acceptable moral theory.

 

EE RESPONSE:

P1 is false.

On p.90 Rachels explains why this is so, take a minute to read it and then explain it to me.

 

SECOND:

P1: No moral theory can be true if it is self-contradictory.

P2: EE is self-contradictory.

C: EE cannot be true.

 

EE RESPONSE:

ONLY GET CONTRADICTION IF YOU ADD A PREMISE THAT IS NOT PART OF EE. Again, figure out the justification for this response as found on P.93.

 

THIRD:

P1: Any ethical theory that privileges the interests of one group without good reason is unacceptably arbitrary.

P2: EE privileges the interests of one “group” (of one) without good reason.

C: EE is unacceptably arbitrary.

 

 

RACHELS’ CONCLUSION:

 

EE IS UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT FAILS TO MEET

MINIMUM CONCEPTION OF MORALITY:

IMPARTIALITY! (95)