James Rachels – Against Egoism

Section 1
Psychological egoism (descriptive) versus ethical egoism (normative).

Section 2:  Psychological egoism
Rachels’ example:  Smith gives up a trip to the country to help a friend.  Is this unselfish or not?

Two general arguments that this is not unselfishness:
a)	The agent is merely doing what he wants to do.  Why should we call this unselfishness?
Rachels’ reply:  This assumes that people never do anything except what they want to do.  There are two classes of actions that we don’t even though we don’t want to: (1)  those which we do as a means to an end (visiting the dentist, for instance), and (2) those which we do due to a feeling of obligation.   While the first class of actions might still be considered actions that the agent wants to do since they indeed want to bring about the intended end, but this is not the case with the second class.  We feel torn when our obligations are in tension with our desires precisely because we sometimes do not want to do what we feel obligated to do.  BUT, (argues Rachels) even if we were to concede that Smith stays in town because he wants to, it is precisely the fact that he wants to help his friend rather than go to the country that causes us to describe his action as unselfish.  Unselfish people want to do things that further others’ ends.  Unselfish acts are acts performed in order to further others’ ends.  “The mere fact that I am acting on my wants does not mean that I am acting selfishly – that depends on what it is that I want” (330).
b)	It feels good to perform unselfish actions.  Therefore, the real reason to perform them is to get this good feeling – a kind of hedonism.
Rachels’ replies: (1) the Lincoln example – the sort of people who derive pleasure from helping others are the sort that we rightly describe as “unselfish”; (2) to perform actions that further others’ ends is not hedonism even if it feels good since nobody performs these acts as mere means to feeling good.  They perform them with the end of helping others, and then (as a kind of by-product) they feel good.  (Exceptions?  Giving blood?  Donating a dollar to a charity?  IMPORTANT:  Rachels is not claiming that no apparently unselfish acts are performed for selfish reasons, but merely that not all of them are – that some acts are indeed altruistic.)

So, why do some people deny altruism?  Rachels suggests as a possible explanation the search for theoretical simplicity combined with three confusions:
1. 	Self-interest (descriptive) versus selfishness (normative).
2. 	The belief that an action must either be self-interested or altruistic.  But, some actions fall into neither category.
3. 	The belief that concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with a concern for the welfare of others.  Some actions can be show self-interest and concern for others at the same time.

Therefore, argues Rachels, no need to accept psychological egoism.  Some actions are selfish, but not all.

Section 3:  Ethical egoism
Rachels considers those who deny that ethical egoism as a doctrine would lead to monstrous consequences, those who argue that it’s in everyone’s best interests to cultivate a harmonious society.  (Narveson, e.g.  Prisoner’s dilemma arguments.)

Rachels finds this line of reasoning naïve since the egoist need only persuade everyone else to keep things harmonious.  She need only appear lend to this harmony.  As long as she gets away with it, it’s in her interest to cheat.

But, doesn’t this render ethical egoism logically inconsistent, ungeneralizeable?   Rachels says no since the ethical egoist is less concerned with persuading everyone else to adopt this view than in maximizing her own situation.  There is no inconsistency in deciding that I want to bring about a world of a certain character, and doing/saying whatever I need to in order to bring it about.

So, can we refute the ethical egoist?  Rachels says no.  There is no knock-down argument against the position.  It all comes down to first principles.  Either you think it’s a virtue to treat people well or you don’t.  There is no way to argue for either position, and there is no way for one faction to sway the other one by argument.  (Other methods perhaps, but not argumentation/reasoning.)  However, those who are not at all motivated by the desire to treat people well are extremely rarely, and possibly mentally ill.  We don’t need a knock-down refutation of them.  

A final thought:  Why does it matter whether our actions are selfish or not?  What is the source of this concern?