Margaret N. Lee
Egoism and Moral Scepticism
Review Questions:
1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by story?
The legend of Gyges is about a ring that was found by a shepherd when an earthquake
happened. The ring can make a person invisible and make that person go anywhere. Gyges
seduced the Queen, murdered the King and took control in the Palace by means of the power of
the ring. Until Glaucon decided that the man of virtue and rogue will choose between two rings.
The rogue did use the ring with no limitations and used the ring for the wealth and power he
want to have while, the virtue man did worst things than the rogue do. Based on the story, it
asked there why not a man does what know is right for him.
2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.
The psychological egoism pertains to the attitude of men for being selfish in everything they do
but it only imply to them when their self- interest have been motivated. While, ethical egoism,
men acts it as normal like they express their obligation. Their only obligation is to do whatever
interest they have. They do their interests regardless of someone or everybody will be affected.
3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments and
how does he reply to them?
The first argument is regarding selfishness and unselfishness. Rachels showed the different sides
of the situation on how you can say that Smith is unselfish on what he decided to do. The
second argument is regarding how Smith’s unselfishness would be in the state of consciousness.
What did Smith do was only classified as unselfish because of the presentation of the situation
that Smith helped his friend instead of going to the country.
4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological
egoism?
The first confusion is the confusion of selfishness with interest. Second, is the assumption that
every action is done from self- interest or from other- regarding motives. Lastly, is the common
but false assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine
concern for the welfare of others. These three confusion statements that I got from the article
of Rachels show how he can see or detect the issues on every situation that was given.
5. State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept
this argument?
“A person is under no obligation to do anything except what is in his own interests.” Rachels did
not accept the argument because for him if people do not know or have his obligation there
would be problems that each one of us would encounter.
6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can
the egoist reply?
According to Rachels, we should not hurt others because they will be hurt. We should help
others because they can get something good on that help which they can benefit with. Based on
the article the egoist’s line is “no doubt, will not be happy with this.”
Discussion Questions:
1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, “Why be Moral?” If so, what exactly is
his answer?
Yes because Rachels explained in the article why we should not hurt others and why we should
help others. “Why shouldn’t you do actions that will harm others because doing those actions
would harm others.”
2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most of people care about others,
even people they don’t know?
According to Rachels, genuine egoists are not merely rare because people do things to help
others.
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. Is such a view immoral or not.
For me, it is not immoral. Because for me if what you are doing is for the others to benefit, go
and do it. Do not think of others or your self- interest.