Have you every heard someone say that “everyone’s just in it for themselves”, this belief is known in philosophy as psychological egoism and I believe it’s dead wrong. Worse still, it’s often just a justification for outright selfish behaviour.
Psychological egoists often refuse to see any act of kindness as non self-regarding, they always claim some selfish motive is behind every kind act. Interestingly, it is this refusal to accept any example of a non self-regarding act that betrays the vulnerability of their position, because if just one genuine example can be found of a non self-regarding act the whole theory falls down. By refusing to accept any example, believers in psychological egoism show that they see their position as certain, without any need for investigation. Psychological egoism is therefore not a theory about human nature based upon observing the real world; their position is held a priori.
Because psychological egoism has no empirical content there is no justification for believing that every act is self-regarding. Their position presupposes a self-regarding ulterior motive in the many ordinary acts of human kindness when there is no reason to suspect one, so watch out if you hold this position as it means you just don’t trust anyone. In making this assumption, psychological egoism also says that goodness is impossible, this is a terrible outlook to have on life.
Furthermore, psychological egoism is not an ethical or moral theory, because it deals directly with motivation it is instead a psychological theory. That’s why it’s called psychological egoism, it has nothing to do with morality at all. This is revealing, as the holders of this belief have self-interest in it being so, for if every act were self-regarding then no one would be blamed, or called immoral, for behaving in this manner. Thus, it is actually a justification for selfish behaviour, and/or a lack of faith in other people.
Finally, one can point to a clear logical error in psychological egoism arising from a confusion of two principles. The first of these is the belief that every act is done to satisfy some desire of our own, and the second is that every act is done to satisfy some self-regarding desire. Psychological egoism rightly applies to the first principle; however, it does not apply to the second principle, as ‘own desire’ is not the same as ‘self-regarding desire’. The satisfaction of our ‘own desire’ may actually lay in someone else’s happiness (so this cannot be called ‘self-regarding’). For example, this is the satisfaction we feel when something good happens to someone we care about (or the unhappiness we feel when something bad happens to them), in this case our satisfaction is dependent on caring about someone else and is therefore not self-regarding. Thus, psychological egoism is unable to be defended successfully, everyone is not ‘just in it for themselves’.
REFERENCES
This article owes much to the brilliant expose done by Bond, see – Bond, E.J., ‘Psychological Egoism,’ in Ethics and Human Well-Being (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996). However, it cannot be said enough, there’s too many selfish people using this excuse.
What is good? Do you mean ‘minimal destruction’? Do you mean expediency in a particular situation? Do you mean ‘favorable to life’?
You do concede that it is a motivational theory and by your example of being happy when someone you love is, shows that people have a selfish motive for acts. Being satisfied is selfish only that your selfishness is now dependent on another person’s well-being. So everyone IS in it for themselves, though, as I show next is purely viewpoint-based.
Personally, I don’t regard motive or morality. You may say I am taoist by what ensues but I am not. Each act is an act, each judgement is just a perception and not reliable.
Eg. I kill a father who has captured an animal. I deprive his kids of a dad but I have freed the animal. There are so many ways to look at it and many ways to beef up the example but there will always be a perceptive variety.
Hello blogger friend,
Aha, the ‘what is good’ question! Well we can debate all sorts of value statements forever, but I think it’s best to just try and get the meaning of the writer – unless they’re particularly obscure. In this case you should just be able to look at the context of my writing and see what ‘good’ is in that context – an act that is not just self regarding or to fulfill one’s own desire – a kind of altruistic form of good (yes, there are many others). Anyway, a discussion about what is good is another whole debate and isn’t the main subject of this post.
On your second point. If we feel satisfied because someone we care about is happy then that is not selfish, as the feeling of satisfied has nothing to do with our own desire or self regard. To argue that we make other people feel happy just so we feel satisfied is putting these things the wrong way round, I’ll explain. Even if we make someone else feel happy just so we do feel satisfied it doesn’t explain why we are satisfied. If we really were just in it for ourselves then we shouldn’t feel anything if we make someone else feel happy. Because some of us actually do feel satisfied is evidence that we are not just in it for ourselves. Otherwise, you have to come up with another selfish reason for why we do feel satisfied. And remember, not accepting any example of an unselfish act shows that psychological egoism is not a theory based on real observation, as it always looks for an excuse for an action rather than accepting the evidence as it is.
On your final point. If you argue that ‘each act is just an act’ and that you ‘dont regard motive or morality’, then you are actually in agreement with me, that everyone is not just in it for themselves. If acts can’t be judged and motive and morality is irrelevant then it doesn’t matter to you if people are selfish or not. Your final position here is truly amoral and would suggest that people are both selfish and unselfish. This I agree with, as the position I was trying to refute is that ‘everyone’ is not just in it for themselves.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Kind regards,
Brad Sims
You know, though you have shown me you concur with me I still disagree on the altruism you speak of.
But let me say my final point is my main point making my response like a katana; two different edges, one blade. Because my final point sort of provides a conclusion for yours while the others seek to bring down your points.
Actually, your argument is such that you give an example and statements of people not being in it for themselves while conveying the idea that they get satisfied doing so. It was upon that I stood to make those cases of mine showing a flimsy altruism and culminating in a combo of yours and mine to affirm my status as a non-believer in those moral questions.
With your reply though, I reconsider. You sought to destool that morality concept of actions and I respect that. As usual I let my way get in my way. I like to have people come clean with conclusive statements so speculation can be trashed. It happens to be a big problem, for instance with proverbs where people get meanings variously.
Thanks again for your response,
It seems we are in general agreement but from different perspectives.
However, regarding the altruism I speak of, what do you say to people who claim they are doing actions just to be good? or because it’s the right thing to do? Do you just not believe their claim to be acting altruistically? If so, why? What evidence do you have that they are not behaving altruistically?
I would suggest that not taking people’s statements at face value implies a philosophical theory held a priori, and not based upon real world observation.
Of course, few of us believe everything people say but if they do say they are being good (whatever that is) just for the sake of being good, and there’s no evidence to the contrary, why doubt them?
Kind regards,
Brad
Just to digress a bit: have you ever asked or wondered why people shun those with interest in philosophy? I just can’t understand it. Their lives are contradictions, a lot of what they see presently is as a result of that thing they turn from.
Back to earth. Really, I don’t believe in selfish/unselfish. But I can offer an example, which is hard for me cos I have to go out of my beloved circle. Let me start so, to derive an emotion from something, it has to affect you in some way. If so, then it all arises from the self and any happiness or sadness is self-produced or self-regarding. Eg. Those who say they are ok or satisfied or pleased by their loved one enjoying while they suffer are actually happy though in a bad way. By that they are still selfish.
Even if you do it just to be good, still by believing in good by yourself, you are serving yourself as the belief is from yourself. The real world is actually present here. Let’s do a probe of those individuals to the core and we find a ‘myself’ there.
I think helpful is ok but selfless or no regard for oneself, I don’t think so.
Just to digress a bit: have you ever asked or wondered why people shun those with interest in philosophy? I just can’t understand it. Their lives are contradictions, a lot of what they have presently is as a result of that thing they turn from.
Back to earth. Really, I don’t believe in selfish/unselfish. But I can offer an example, which is hard for me cos I have to go out of my beloved circle. Let me start so, to derive an emotion from something, it has to affect you in some way. If so, then it all arises from the self and any happiness or sadness is self-produced or self-regarding. Eg. Those who say they are ok or satisfied or pleased by their loved one enjoying while they suffer are actually happy though in a bad way. By that they are still selfish.
Even if you do it just to be good, still by believing in good by yourself, you are serving yourself as the belief is from yourself. The real world is actually present here. Let’s do a probe of those individuals to the core and we find a ‘myself’ there.
I think helpful is ok but selfless or no regard for oneself, I don’t think so.