to have some inherent faults that lead us to believe that the theory is irrefutable
and should be considered meaningless. Because of egoism attractiveness in
simplifying and explaining all of our actions it is hard for me to think of it as
meaningless, yet after reading some recent articles and examples there does
seem to be a critical fault in this theory regarding its inability to have objections
to it.
The following link reminded me a lot of the example Shafer-Landau points
out in chapter 7 of his book The Fundamentals of Ethics:
Although
this Captain America scene is fictional in contrast to the example of Army private Ross McGinnis, the video still helps illustrate an act that seems very
altruistic. Knowing that the theory of psychological egoism is not compatible with
altruism, examples such as this undoubtedly bring egoism into question. This seems
even more true when thinking about egoism’s response to these examples where it
appears as though the individual was motivated to act or make decisions for
individuals other than themselves (not self interest). As Shafer-Landau suggests,
egoists’ believe “that actions are never done from altruistic motives (Shafer-Landau
93). Because of this, egoists would claim that the individuals in the examples above
acted on self-interested motives, but to what extent remains undetermined within
the theory. Psychological egoism is very ambiguous when it comes to the degree to
which all of our decisions or actions are motivated by self-interest. As we
questioned in class, are our actions centrally, wholly, somewhat, or partly motivated
by self-interest? Egoism fails in affirming this amount, and as a result, is subjected to
much needed criticism.
Personally, I feel as though the theory could not be true if it was to claim that
all our actions are always or wholly motivated by self interest. I say this because when considering the individuals who make tremendous sacrifices for religious or
volunteer work or the firefighters and citizens who died trying to help others in the 911
tradegy, it seems impossible to me that these individuals were acting solely out of
self-interest. With that being said, if the theory was to suggest that our actions are only
partly motivated by self interest in every case it would certainly seem more plausible
and agreeable. Perhaps, if egoism was more concrete on the extent to which
self-interest motivates our actions, there could be more arguments devleloped to refute
it. It is partly due to this ambiguousness that has led psychological egoism to be
currently seen as irrefutable and ultimately pointless. Relatedly, Shafer-Landau
suggests and explains just how egoism commits the fallacy of begging the question.
Because of egoism’s premise that self-interest is the most significant and strongest
possible motive for our actions, it already entails its own conclusion that all of our
actions are motivated by self-interest. Although this may be true it is still important
to realize that an egoist could even admit that psychological egoism begs the
question and still assert that the ultimate conclusion (we are always acting out of
self-interest) remains true, or at least, cannot be proven false. Personally, I feel
as though this type of response reveals even more so that this theory is
irrefutable, which should in itself bring about doubt and questioning. With all
things considered, I feel as though egoism hides behind its ambiguity towards the
degree to which all of our actions are motivated by self-interest. This ambiguity
helps and even allows for the irrefutability within this theory, but as many experts
such as Shafer-Landau point out, this irrefutability charateristic casts even more
skepticism upon egoism.
Works Cited
"Psychological Egoism." Philosophy
Lander Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2015.
<http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/egoism.html>.
Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals
of Ethics. New York: Oxford University
Press,
2012. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.