| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Egoism and Moral Scepticism

Page history last edited by Jenell Ann Bernardino 8 years, 3 months ago

Egoism and Moral Scepticism 

By James Rachels

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

 

1)    Explain the legend of Gyges. What question s about morality are raised by the source?

The legend of Gyges is about a shepherd named Glaucon, who found a magic ring. The ring is said to be magic because it makes the person invisible. Because of that, he decided to seize the thrown of the king by way of seducing the queen and asking the queen to kill the king. There are two rings which he had given, namely to a man of rogue and a man of virtue. The rogue will use it without moral constraints since he knows that the ring will protect him from people. While, the man of virtue is likewise be the same with the rogue’s action since a man would do anything what he likes if he does not have any fears. The moral issue in this story that was raised is a person would not be moral if he will not benefit. Rogue and the man of virtue will not do good things while having that ring, if they don’t believe in any morality. But if one person believed that doing good things to everybody is good, then he would likely use the ring for the advantage of being good.

 

2)    Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism?

Psychological egoism means that all men are selfish whatever they do is in line with their own self. A person who believes psychological egoism will base their actions to only themselves, and not by helping other people. While ethical egoism means that men have no obligations to do anything except their own interests. Thus, a person is doing actions just for the sake of their interests.

3)    Rachel’s discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them?

The first argument for psychological egoism is about a person never volunteers to do any actions, if they don’t want to do it. They must be doing what he wants to do. According to Rachel’s, this is wrong since a person sometimes have no option, but to do it. For example, a student who wants to passed the exam by way of studying. Even though the person does not like to study, still he needs to study in order to pass the exam. In addition to that the argument said that a person who only cares his own benefits or interest is sometimes called as selfish act. The example that was raised in this argument is a person who chose to help his friend rather than resting in his house. The person is said to choose to help his friend because he is merely doing what he most wants to do rather than resting in his house and he is doing “unselfish act”.

The second argument for psychological egoism is that unselfish actions produced a self-satisfaction in the person doing the act. Even though the person who tends to help his friend rather than resting, does not have regret that he chose to help since it gives him self-satisfaction. Our conscience will be the one to blame us if we don’t do anything to help our friend. If a man is selfish then this means that he will not bother to listen to their conscience. Thus, this is doing unselfish act.

4)    What three commonplace confusions does Rachel’s detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?

The first is about the confusion of selfishness with self-interest. If a person who has growing wisdom tooth seeks a dentist then this is called as self-interest. But this will not be called as selfish since he is not hurting other people. Selfish and self-interest is a different term. A selfish act if you are not sharing your excess food to other people, but self-interest is just eating the food that you must eat in order to be healthy.

Second is about the confusions that every action is based either from self-interest or other motives. One example of this is a person who is smoking even though he knows that it is bad in his health, still he continues to smoke because that is pleasure for his part. Then, we can conclude that his action is not based on his self-interest.

Third is confusion is that a concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others. This is not true since we would like that everybody including me is happy. There is no selfish act if we are thinking for the sake of everyone else.

5)    State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachel’s accept this argument?

The argument that is saying ethical egoism is inconsistent is the third one which states that it is a false assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others. There is no inconsistency because the ethical egoism does not apply to all scenarios. There can be sometimes a conflict with what you desire and the welfare of other people, but I can say that it depends to the person to choose the right decision. Rachel’s does not accept this argument since the word others can also mean our family and friends. Sometimes, we based our decision regarding their decision. Thus, I can say that we are not selfish if we listened to what our families and friends want us to do.

6)    According to Rachel’s, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply?

According to Rachel’s, we should not hurt others and we should help others because we are living in the same society with other people. If we are doing the right thing by not doing crimes, then we are secured. It is our advantage that we are respecting the rules and obligations of the society. If we do our role in our society, then we are creating happy and secure life in the society. It is our own advantage if weare doing what is right.

 

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1)    How Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly is his answer?

When Glaucon said that why man should be moral if he will not have an advantage of it, Rachel answered it by way of explaining that everybody has an advantage of doing all good things. If a person commits crime, it is his own sake that will be put to imprison. But if a person follows the rules and regulations of the society, then he will have a happy and secured life.

2)    Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claim? Is it fact that most people care about others, even people they don’t know?

I believed that genuine egoists are rare since the majority of people are fulfilling their obligations in their society. A genuine egoist is said to be a person who is a selfish and thinks of their self-interest. I also believed that we care for other people even though we don’t know a person sometimes we tend to help them as much as we could.

3)    Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of others and never in one’s own self-interest. In such a view immoral or not?

I believed that ethical altruism is immoral. We should also care for ourselves and not only benefiting other people. It is immoral if we will just follow what others are saying. The right thing to do is to balance your self-interest with benefiting other people.

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.