Handout 3: Rachels s The Elements of Moral Philosophy: Chapter 5

Transcription

1 Philosophy 160C Fall 2008 jayme johnson Handout 3: Rachels s The Elements of Moral Philosophy: Chapter 5 Ethical Egoism A Common Sense Assumption (CSA): We have a natural duties to others simply because they are other people who could be helped or harmed by what we do. Ethical Egoism denies CSA. EE: each person ought to pursue his or her own self interest exclusively. [Note: EE says that a person ought to do what really is in his or her best interests, over the long run.] According to EE, then, CSA is false because our only natural duty is to do what is best for ourselves. What EE Is NOT: EE is not the same as a related theory, Psychological Egoism (PE). PE: Each person does in fact always do what is in his or her best interest alone. EE is a normative theory. More specifically it is a theory in NEB. PE is an empirical theory. It is not an ethical theory at all, but a psychological theory. AND if PE is true, the whole pursuit of ethics is in trouble. If we always do what is in our own best interests, regardless, then trying to figure out what we ought to do is a pointless endeavor. The Battleground of PE is the question whether there are ever any truly altruistic acts. If genuine altruism is possible, then PE is sunk. That is to say, if we can think of a situation in which a person acts selflessly to benefit another person for the sake of that other person, then PE cannot be true. Question: Is Altruism possible? The Argument from Altruism 1. If PE is true, then altruism is impossible. 2. Altruism is not impossible. 1

2 3. Therefore PE is not true. Rationale for premise 2: If altruism is impossible, then Raoul Wallenberg acted from completely selfish motivations. Raoul Wallenberg did not act from completely selfish motivations. Therefore altruism is not impossible. The Argument that we always do what we most want to do 1. Every time we act, we perform that action because it is the one that we most want to do. 2. If this is the case, then PE is true. 3. Therefore, PE is true. Criticism: Premise 2 makes an assumption that people always most want to do what is in their genuine best interest. This is clearly false. We often want most to do things that are not in our best interest at all. The Argument that we do what makes us feel good 1. People only act unselfishly when it makes them feel good to do it. 2. If so, then they are not truly acting altruistically, but because it feels good. 3. And if this is true, then so is PE. the strategy of reinterpreting motives: once the motives of a person performing an allegedly altruistic action are properly examined we can see that, at bottom, they are still acting in their own self interest. Criticism: Premise 1 is false. While it often does feel good to act unselfishly, this is not, I think always one s only motive, or even the main motive. E.g. Saving the drowning baby. Criticism: Premise 2 assumes that what feels good is the same as what is in one s best interest. Again, we often find ourselves indulging in actions that feel quite good, but are not in our best interests. Thus Premise 2 is false. So PE is not true, and even if it were, it would not help out the Ethical Egoist in any way. Three Arguments in Favor of Ethical Egoism The Argument That Altruism is Self-Defeating 1. Everyone will be better off if each of us looks out, exclusively, for our own interests. 2. Therefore, we each should look out, exclusively for our own interests. 2

3 Rationale for premise 1: each knows their own wants & needs best looking out for others is unwarranted intrusion on their privacy charity degrades the recipient Criticism: Premise 1 is false. Looking at the rationale, (1) sometimes mother knows best, (2) help is not always unwelcome "butting in" (3) charity doesn't always degrade the recipient. It seems that there are cases in which it is more degrading to starve or be denied medical treatment than to receive food or treatment as charity. More serious defect: not really an argument for ethical egoism since it presupposes something contrary to egoism: ethical egoism (to pursue the good of the one) endorsed not as end in itself, here but as means to social betterment (the good of the many) so social betterment (the good of the many) is presupposed as the overriding consideration Ayn Rand's Argument 1. We each ought to regard this one life as of supreme importance or ultimate value to us. since we each have just one life. 2. Ethical egoism and only ethical egoism allows each individual's life to be of supreme importance or ultimate value to them. Other moral theories all directly or indirectly enjoin altruism. Altruism regards the individual life as something one may be required to sacrifice for the sake of others. so, altruism does not allow each individuals life to be of supreme importance to them. 3. Therefore, we ought to be Ethical Egoists. Rachels' criticism: the argument: rests on a false dichotomy. How Rachels sees the argument: 1. EE or Radical Altruism (RA = regarding your life as of NO importance) 2. Not RA 3. Therefore, EE. 3

4 Rachels s rejoinder altruism doesn't demand regarding your life as of NO importance due concern for oneself doesn't require regarding one's self as the ONLY important thing there is a middle ground: "the common-sense view" sometimes you should look out for the interests of others sometimes you should look out for number one Ethical Egoism as Compatible with Commonsense Morality-- an inference to the best explanation -- following Hobbes 1. The egoistic "pursue you own interests" principle actually explains why we acknowledge the various altruistic obligations we do We should do good unto others because if we do others will be more likely to do good unto us. So, altruism is justified (instrumentally) by being in the best interests of each individual. 2. Therefore, we ought to acknowledge this egoistic principle. Two Objections: (1) doesn't show that altruistic concern is always warranted If I know I can get away with murder (if I know I won't be found out and punished or subject to revenge) then, on this view I should do it. (2) Proves less than it tries to: Even if altruism is in my enlightened best interest, there may be other reasons why it's good. Maybe both instrumentally good vis a vis my own self interest and intrinsically good (good in and of itself) contrary to egoism Three Arguments Against Ethical Egoism The Argument that Ethical Egoism Cannot Handle Conflicts of Interest -- following Kurt Baier 1. Morality is supposed to help us resolve conflicts of interest 2.EE gives no help in this regard 3. So EE is not an acceptable morality Pro EE rejoinder: 1 is false: morality shouldn't try to adjudicate moral disputes 4

5 o o disputes are resolved by someone winning out or by compromise between the warring parties not by appeal to some supposedly impartial standards The Argument that Ethical Egoism is Logically Inconsistent 1. Assuming EE... people will often have conflicting duties it's in B's best interest to kill K: so B has a duty to do so (according to EE) and it's in K's best interest to avoid being killed: K has a duty (by EE) to prevent it 2. It's wrong to prevent someone's doing their duty 3. So, EE entails a contradiction o it's not wrong for B to kill K (since it's in B's best interest to kill K) it is wrong for B to kill K K has a duty to avoid being killed and it's wrong for B to prevent K from doing K's duty So, EE (being self-contradictory) is false. Rejoinder o the contradiction doesn't derive from EE alone o it derives from EE plus premise 2: "It's wrong to prevent someone from doing their duty." o Friends of EE will reject this premise it's only wrong (according to EE) to prevent someone from doing their duty if it's a contrary to you interests to prevent it here it plainly is in K's interest to prevent B from doing his duty. so K is not wrong -- in fact K is morally obliged (by EE) -- to prevent B from doing his duty. The Argument That Ethical Egoism is Unacceptably Arbitrary 1. We can justify treating people differently only if we can show that there is some factual difference between them that is relevant to justifying the difference in treatment. 2. Ethical egoism says we should treat others and ourselves differently 3. But there is no factual difference between self and others that justifies this difference in treatment 4. So, EE is unacceptably arbitrary Rachels on this argument (88) o "comes closest to an outright refutation of Ethical Egoism" o "sheds light on why the interests of others should matter to others for the very same reason we care about our own because they are in all relevant respects like us 5