Introduction to Ethics
Topic: Ethical Egoism
James Rachels
•
•
•
•
American philosopher
University of Alabama
1941-2003
Primary focuses:
– Ethics
– Animal rights
• Wrote The Elements of
Moral Philosophy (1986)
Target: Ethical Egoism
Egoism: Our self-interests (sometimes) conflict
with the requirements of justice or morality, but
we should always act selfishly, even when our
self-interests are immoral or unjust.
Ethical Egoism: It is always morally correct to act
in one’s own self-interest.
A more explicit definition
Ethical Egoism: Action x as performed by agent
A is morally correct if and only if x is in A’s selfinterest.
Compare:
Ethical Egoism: It is always morally correct to act
in one’s own self-interest.
Not Psychological Egoism
Psychological Egoism:
-People always pursue their own interests
-Every action is (ultimately) intended to
satisfy some selfish desire of the one who
performs it.
Question:
How is this different from Ethical Egoism?
Things Ethical Egoism does NOT say:
• One should promote one’s own interests as well as the
interests of others
– NO: Your only duty is to yourself
• You should avoid promoting the interests of others
– NO: If promoting the interests of others serves your
interests, then it is morally acceptable to help others
• You should do whatever will provide instant
gratification
– NO: “A person ought to do what really is to his or her own
best advantage, over the long run. [Ethical Egoism]
endorses selfishness, not foolishness.”
What does it mean for Ethical Egoism
to be false?
Ethical Egoism: Action x as performed by agent
A is morally correct if and only if x is in A’s selfinterest.
~Ethical Egoism: ?
There is an action x as performed by agent A
that is morally correct but not in A’s self-interest,
OR x is in A’s self interest but not morally
correct.
Counterexamples to Ethical Egoism
2 kinds:
(1) Something that is morally right but not
selfish,
(2) Something that is selfish but not morally
right.
Rachels’s counterexample
• The duty to contribute to famine relief
-Those who live in affluent countries can save people
from dying of starvation by giving up some luxuries.
-It would be morally right, but not selfish, to contribute
to famine relief.
We might call this an example of,
Minimal Altruism: sometimes (maybe very rarely) it is
morally right to act altruistically, i.e. non-selfishly
Note: if Rachels is right, then Ethical Egoism is false.
Three Arguments for Ethical Egoism
• Altruism is self-defeating
• Altruism destroys the value of human life
• Ethical Egoism is the fundamental principle of
morality
Altruism is self-defeating
• None of us knows how to care for others; we
only really know how to care for ourselves.
• Looking out for others is an offensive intrusion
into the privacy of others.
• Charity is degrading—it robs those who are
helped of their dignity.
Altruism is self-defeating
1. We ought to do whatever will promote the
best interests of everyone alike.
2. The interests of everyone will be promoted if
each of us adopts the policy of pursuing our
own interests exclusively.
3. Therefore, each of us should adopt the policy
of pursuing our own interests exclusively.
Altruism is self-defeating
Rachels says, the problem is premise 1:
1. We ought to do whatever will promote the best
interests of everyone alike.
Rachels says:
This is not what an Ethical Egoist should think!
An ethical egoist thinks the only interests you should
promote are your own.
Is Rachels right to dismiss this argument?
Altruism destroys the value of life
1. The value of a human life is of supreme
importance.
2. The ethics of altruism regards the life of the
individual as something that should be sacrificed
for the good of others.
3. Therefore, the ethics of altruism should be
rejected.
4. Ethical Egoism is the only philosophy that places
supreme value on human life.
5. Therefore, Ethical Egoism should be accepted.
Altruism destroys the value of life
Rachels replies:
This argument presents a false dichotomy,
as if the only two positions are Ethical Egoism or an
extreme form of altruism in which you must
sacrifice your life for others.
Consider again,
Minimal Altruism: sometimes (maybe very rarely) it is
morally right to act altruistically, i.e. non-selfishly
Ethical Egoism is the fundamental
principle of morality
1. The rightness or wrongness of every action
can be shown to follow from Ethical Egoism.
2. So Ethical Egoism is the best explanation of
morality.
3. Inference to the best explanation: if X is the
best explanation of some phenomenon, then
X is true.
4. Therefore, Ethical Egoism is true.
Ethical Egoism is the fundamental
principle of morality
• According to Rachels, the main example of
this line of thought is due to Hobbes.
• We establish and adhere to moral principles
because it is in our own best interest to
escape the state of nature.
• We won’t worry about understanding Hobbes.
Ethical Egoism is the fundamental
principle of morality
The basic idea:
• Every moral principle we accept is ultimately
explained by the role it plays in promoting our
own self-interest.
• Egoism is what explains the appearance of
what appears to be other-regarding morality.
Ethical Egoism is the fundamental
principle of morality
Is it a sound argument?
Rachels argues against premise 1:
It is not always in our best selfish interest to follow
the general rules we agree to in order to serve our
selfish interests.
Sometimes we might gain by breaking the moral
code.
This is Glaucon’s point!
Ethical Egoism is the fundamental
principle of morality
Understanding check:
Why does Glaucon’s point that our self-interest
conflicts with our moral duties undermine this
argument for ethical egoism?
Ethical Egoism is the fundamental
principle of morality
A second reply from Rachels:
Even if it is always in our best selfish interest
to obey the moral code, pace Glaucon, this does
not show that Ethical Egoism is true.
It does not prove that self-interest is the only
reason for one to do what is right.
Ethical Egoism is the fundamental
principle of morality
A second reply from Rachels:
In other words, even if morality requires us to
act in ways that always promote our selfish
interests, that doesn’t show that our reasons for
acting morally are always selfish.
Ethical Egoism is the fundamental
principle of morality
Example:
I bring flowers to my sick grandmother.
Then an ethical egoist points out that doing
so increases my reputation and makes me feel
good.
I could legitimately reply that those were not
my reasons for bringing her flowers.
Is Rachels’s second reply any good?
Ethical Egoism: Action x as performed by agent
A is morally correct if and only if x is in A’s selfinterest.
• Nothing here about our reasons for acting...
• Maybe this definition needs to be revised so
that it explicitly mentions reasons?
• As stated, Rachels’s second reply does not
contradict ethical egoism.
Recap: Outline of Paper
• Part 1: Clarify the thesis of Ethical Egoism
– Distinguish it from Psychological egoism
– Explain what EE does NOT say
• Part 2: Three arguments FOR Ethical Egoism
• Try to find the best arguments for EE and show that they
are not good.
• Part 3: Three arguments AGAINST Ethical
Egoism
– (This is where we are now)
Part 3: Three arguments AGAINST
Ethical Egoism
Rachels considers three arguments against EE.
He shows that two of those arguments are bad.
He thinks one of them is good.
Question: If Rachels is trying to argue against
Ethical Egoism, why is he trying to show that
some of the arguments against EE are bad?
Three arguments against EE
1. Ethical Egoism fails to resolve moral conflicts
2. Ethical Egoism is logically inconsistent
3. Ethical Egoism entails arbitrary moral
distinctions
Argument #1
Rachels considers the following (weird) case:
• B and K are candidates for the presidency.
• It would be in B’s interest if K were liquidated
(killed),
• and it would be in K’s interest if B were
liquidated (killed).
• Similarly, it is in B’s interest to foil K’s murder
plan and it is in K’s interest to foil B’s plan.
Argument #1
• Who is right and who is wrong in this scenario?
• According to Ethical Egoism, the plans of both B
and K are morally correct (because they are each
appropriately selfish).
• But their plans are in conflict with each other.
• A moral theory should resolve conflicts by telling
us which plans should be pursued.
• Therefore, Ethical Egoism fails as a moral theory.
Argument #1
• Before we get to Rachels’s response...
This case is weird.
a. Ethical Egoism doesn’t entail that presidential
candidates should try to kill each other...
b. The case seems needlessly complicated, i.e. it is a
bad thought experiment.
Question: Can anyone think of a better example of two
people with conflicting selfish interests?
Argument #1
• Rachels’s reply:
An Ethical Egoist does not need to agree that the
point of a moral theory is to resolve conflicts of
interest.
An Ethical Egoist can maintain that the point of a
moral theory is to tell us what we should do, i.e.
that we should act selfishly and try to ensure that
our own selfish interests win out whenever they
conflict with other people’s selfish interests.
Argument #1
• Note: Rachels is saying this is a bad argument
against Ethical Egoism
• YET he still believes Ethical Egoism is false
Argument #1
• This is an example of an important aspect of
philosophy:
• Philosophers do not want to accept bad
arguments, even when those arguments
support their beliefs.
• Philosophers want to find good arguments in
support of the positions they hold.
Argument #2
• Ethical Egoism entails a contradiction (and so
must be false):
“It is in B’s interest to kill K, and obviously in K’s
interest to prevent it. But...
If K prevents B from liquidating him, his act must be
said to be both wrong and not wrong—wrong
because it is the prevention of what B ought to do,
his duty...not wrong because it is what K ought to
do... But one and the same act (logically) cannot be
both morally wrong and not morally wrong.”
Argument #2
• K’s action X is both
– Wrong: because x prevents B from pursuing his
selfish goals
– Right: because x promotes K’s selfish goals
Argument #2
• Rachels’s reply:
– Ethical Egoism doesn’t entail that it is inherently
wrong to prevent someone from pursuing their
selfish goals.
– So K’s action is just right; it is not also wrong.
Argument #2
Can anyone think of a better case to show that
Ethical Egoism is contradictory?
Argument #3
1. Any moral doctrine that assigns greater
importance to the interests of one group than to
those of another is unacceptably arbitrary
unless there is some difference between the
members of the groups that justifies treating
them differently.
Argument #3
2. Ethical Egoism would have each person assign
greater importance to his or her own interests
to than to the interests of others. But there is no
general difference between oneself and others,
to which each person can appeal, that justifies
this difference in treatment.
3. Therefore, Ethical Egoism is unacceptably
arbitrary.
Problematic Aspect of Argument #3
Rachels supports premise 1 by talking about
racism.
Racism (Rachels’s definition): dividing people
into groups according to race and and assigning
greater importance to the interests of one race
than to others.
Problematic Aspect of Argument #3
According to Rachels, racism is wrong because it
is arbitrary.
Rachels states an entailment of this view: racism
would be right if differences between races
could be identified that justified different
treatment...
Problematic Aspect of Argument #3
“In the past, racists have sometimes attempted
to do this by picturing blacks as stupid, lacking in
ambition, and the like. If this were true, then it
might justify treating them differently, in at least
some circumstances... But of course it is not
true, and in fact there are no such general
differences between the races.” –Rachels
This is messed up.
Problematic Aspect of Argument #3
Rachels is saying that if racist stereotypes were
true it might justify oppression.
Besides missing the point of why racism is bad,
Rachels’s thought also encourages the kinds of
racist science that attempt to justify the
oppression of peoples of color by seeking to
prove that people of color are culturally or
genetically inferior to whites.
Problematic Aspect of Argument #3
Racism is a form of systemic, structural oppression
that functions to privilege the dominant (i.e. white)
racial group.
The wrongness of racism does not consist in the
arbitrariness of the identification of whites as
superior to people of color.
Rachels mistaken definition of racism leads him to
this messed up line of reasoning in support of
premise 1.
Problematic Aspect of Argument #3
Does that mean premise 1 is false?
1. Any moral doctrine that assigns greater importance to
the interests of one group than to those of another is
unacceptably arbitrary unless there is some difference
between the members of the groups that justifies
treating them differently.
No, we can still accept the argument.
We should just be clear that racism is not an example of a
moral doctrine that is bad simply because it is
unacceptably arbitrary.
Summing up:
• Egoism vs. ethical egoism vs. psychological
egoism
• 3 arguments for ethical egoism
– Rachels: all of these fail
• 3 arguments against
– Rachels: the first two fail; the last succeeds