Psychological and Ethical Egoism

Moral theories, ethics, values and psychological definitions appear to be so interwoven as to make it difficult to unravel where one begins and another ends.  The intention here is to examine the definitions of both moral theories, their differences, fallacies, and motivation.  The differences between selfishness and self- interest need to be explored, and result in the offering of an informed opinion on whether either can be  truly understood to belong to any ethical philosophy.

Ethical Egoism:

This could well be described as a doctrine in which each person ‘should’ look after their own self-interests, as that is the most valuable thing for them.  Moseley (2006) explains it thus:  “The individual aims at her own greatest good” and “it is always moral to promote one’s own good, and it is never moral not to promote it.”  The ‘should’ makes it a prescriptive doctrine; in its strong version, the theory suggests that pursuing self-interest  equates to being moral and that a person should let nothing stop him form reaching his long term goals – every action should lead to this.  This idea is supported in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, where she considers altruism (the opposite of egoism) to be immoral.  She says in the Introduction to her book ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ (Rand, 1964, 7)

            “The attack on “selfishness” is an attack on man’s self-esteem; to surrender

            one is to surrender the other.”

The weaker version admits that not everybody does this, as self-interested actions can help others.  In fact, Hobbes, in ‘Leviathan’ (1651) declares in his Introduction that, despite having self-serving desires due to our mechanical nature, “the wealth, and riches of all the particular members are the strengths;…”  This infers that values are around wealth and attaining our own ends, but Hobbes sees the man with these as contributing to the good of the whole society.  The fact that ethical egoists obey laws, and carry out duties is not especially selfish, this too shows up as the weaker version.

Psychological Egoism 

Is an empirical theory because it derives from observation of human nature and does not tell people how to act, only that they do so from a basis of selfishness, driven by the desire to gratify their pleasure and self-interest.  No matter what a person does, the theory contends that it will always be from self-interest, and any act can be interpreted this way.  The fallacy lies in the many  ‘disconfirming’ instances that refute the idea (Philosophy, Lander, n.d.).  A few examples include the fact that people do help others, follow faiths and conscience, do dangerous things, none of which are in their own selfish interests.  Further evidence of the fallacy can be found in research that identified that even young children have moral motivation to care about others and to know right from wrong.  It is instinctive, nor learned, though example and environment help.    In ‘The Handbook of Positive Psychology’, Michael Schulman’s (2002) chapter entitled ‘How We Become Moral’ highlights the fallacy further when he states that: