Ethical Egoism. Ethical Egoism Things You Should Know. Quiz: one sentence each beginning with The claim that

Transcription

1 Ethical Egoism Quiz: one sentence each beginning with The claim that 1) What is ethical 2) What is psychological Ethical Egoism Things You Should Know How are ethical egoism and ethical relativism each different challenges to standard ethics? What is ethical What is psychological How would psychological egoism, if true, support ethical Also good quiz question. (Hint: ought implies can )

2 Things You Should Know (continued) What arguments are offered in favor of psychological Why do most philosophers reject psychological What are the main arguments against ethical What does Rachels say about this? What does course pack say about this? Review: Challenges to Standard View Standard view Rationality Impartiality Challenge Ethical relativism: what is right is not based on universal reason but on beliefs of each culture. Ethical egoism: our only obligation is to ourselves Ethical Egoism: A Normative Claim Definition: One s only moral obligation is to maximize one s own interests. Obviously challenges standard view of impartiality. Remember : both consequentialism and nonconsequentialism are impartial. Look out for #1 but Consider genuine interests, not just crude or obvious ones. Consider long-term as well as short-term: help others and sacrifice if (but only if) it will help oneself in the long term.

3 Argument for Ethical Egoism It leads to the good for all Similar to argument for capitalism based on Adam Smith s invisible hand Criticisms Doesn t actually lead to good for all It s not really an argument for ethical egoism but more an argument for utilitarianism Argument for Ethical Egoism: Psychological Egoism Psychological egoism is a purely descriptive claim. Definitions: People are only capable of acting in what they think is their own self-interest. People are always motivated by self-interest. It is impossible for people to act on a motivation purely to help others or to do the right thing, conflicting with self-interest. So what? Psychological egoism is a descriptive claim, not an ethical claim. So why does it matter? If it only claimed that sacrificing selfinterest is difficult, it would not be a challenge to ethics. Crucial point: ought implies can

4 Quiz How would psychological egoism, if true, support ethical (Hint: ought implies can ) Is Psychological Egoism (PE) True? Look inside yourself PE: People are motivated by desire for good reputation, return gain, etc. PE: Even when people help others or sacrifice, they get a good feeling out of it. PE: Whatever people do, they are satisfying one of their own desires. Response to Arguments for Psychological Egoism Many acts not for obvious gains. Not enough to show people GET a good feeling, act must be for the sake of good feeling (or avoiding guilt). Confusion: psychological egoism must show that object of desire is self-interest.

5 Distinguish 2 Things Mother Teresa helps starving children Who is the subject? (Whose desire is being satisfied?) Of course it s Mother Teresa s desire, but that s no argument for PE. What is the object of the desire? The object must be herself. No evidence for this. Arguments Against Ethical Egoism Why shouldn t you harm others? Because they would be harmed! Ethical egoism is simply not the ethical point of view because it cannot solve conflicts of interests. (Note the assumption made about what the purpose of ethics. Insiders and Outsiders (excerpt), Peter Singer Peter Singer (1946- ), professor of philosophy at Princeton, has written influential books and articles on numerous philosophical issues, including our obligations to animals and starving people and the ethics of euthanasia. He may be the most controversial philosopher in America today. THE SHELTER It is February 2002, and the world is taking stock of the damage done by the nuclear war in the Middle East toward the close of the previous year. The global level of radioactivity now and for about eight years to come is so high that only those living in fallout shelters can be confident of surviving in reasonable health. For the rest, who must breathe unfiltered air and consume food and water with high levels of radiation, the prospects are grim. Probably 10 per cent will die of radiation sickness within the next two months; another 30 per cent are expected to develop fatal forms of cancer within five years; and even the remainder will have rates of cancer ten times higher than normal, while the risk that their children will be malformed fifty times greater than before the war. The fortunate ones, of course, are those who were far-sighted enough to buy a share in the fallout shelters built by real-estate speculators as international tensions rose in the late 1990s. Most of these shelters were designed as underground villages, each with enough accommodation and supplies to provide for the needs of 10,000 people for twenty years. The villages are self-governing, with democratic constitutions that were agreed to in advance. They also have sophisticated security systems that enable them to admit to the shelter whoever they decide to admit, and keep out all others. The news that it will not be necessary to stay in the shelters for much more than eight years has naturally been greeted with joy by the members of an underground community called Fairhaven. But it has also led to the first serious friction among them. For above the shaft that leads down to Fairhaven, there are thousands.people who are not investors in a shelter. These people can be seen, and heard, through television cameras installed at the entrance. They are pleading to be admitted. They know that if they can get into a shelter quickly, they will escape most of the consequences of exposure to radiation. At first, before it was known how long it would be until it was safe to return to the outside, these pleas had virtually no support from within the shelter. Now, however, the case for admitting at least some of them has become much stronger. Since the supplies need last only eight years, they will stretch to more than double the number of people at present in the shelters. Accommodation presents only slightly greater problems: Fairhaven was designed to function as a luxury retreat when not needed for a real emergency, and is equipped with tennis courts, swimming pools, and a large gymnasium. If everyone were to consent to keep fit by doing aerobics in their own living rooms, it would be possible to provide primitive but adequate sleeping space for all those whom the supplies can stretch to feed.