Do we have non-self-interested reasons to act morally?
Introduction
This paper seeks to deliberate on the debate on whether there are non-self-interest reasons to act morally. The paper reviews two pivotal arguments from two great philosophers with opposing views. The philosopher, Korsgaard supports the motion while Hobbes opposes it. The two have very sensible arguments on whether human beings are moral because of the benefits they get or not. However, I find that Korsgaard has a more convincing reflection in the motion. Through recent research, scores of individuals have confirmed that they have selfless reasons to be kind to others. People, naturally say sorry when a person is falls down in a street. This is not because they have any selfish …show more content…
Hobbes bases his argument about morality on self-interest (Feinberg 32). He accentuates the acts of kindness are motivated by egotism and not majorly the moral purpose. Additionally, he claims that those who sacrifice their lives and finances are not devoid of self-absorption. He states that such individuals believe that their own good is coined to that of others (Feinberg 36). When they help others, they will definitely become better individuals. Consequently, he supports the notion that self-centeredness is the sole motivation the initiation of any action. He contends that self-interest cannot be separated from the ethical inclination. Moreover, Hobbes explains his ideals by using the psychological egoism concept (Feinberg 39). Psychological egoism views that individuals are always driven by self-absorption. People who perform acts of altruism do so to fulfill their own needs. It claims that people may help a person in need to end the distress they feel. Further, he maintains that human beings have deep-seated motives to benefit directly and indirectly even as they help others. Hobble’s standpoint is descriptive rather than normative (Feinberg 47). It highlights on how situations are rather than how they should be (Feinberg …show more content…
Different scholars have tried to justify views on acts of selfishness and selflessness. However, the use of self-interest to justify morality compromises the essence of human goodness. For instance, many psychologists argue that people respond to others’ situation due to shock, pain, alarm or fear (Korsgaard 49). For example, every individual who witnesses a car accident will automatically rush to help the victims. Psychologists explain the reaction as a means to end personal distress. They argue that people help others in order to help themselves. They concur that the good nature of most individuals is only a camouflaged kind of self-regard. This kind of thinking is misguided as it dismisses any existence of human kindness. For example, Hobbes was once seen giving some money to a beggar. When asked to explain his actions, he illustrated that he was trying to ease his own discomfort at seeing someone suffer (Korsgaard
Introduction
This paper seeks to deliberate on the debate on whether there are non-self-interest reasons to act morally. The paper reviews two pivotal arguments from two great philosophers with opposing views. The philosopher, Korsgaard supports the motion while Hobbes opposes it. The two have very sensible arguments on whether human beings are moral because of the benefits they get or not. However, I find that Korsgaard has a more convincing reflection in the motion. Through recent research, scores of individuals have confirmed that they have selfless reasons to be kind to others. People, naturally say sorry when a person is falls down in a street. This is not because they have any selfish …show more content…
Hobbes bases his argument about morality on self-interest (Feinberg 32). He accentuates the acts of kindness are motivated by egotism and not majorly the moral purpose. Additionally, he claims that those who sacrifice their lives and finances are not devoid of self-absorption. He states that such individuals believe that their own good is coined to that of others (Feinberg 36). When they help others, they will definitely become better individuals. Consequently, he supports the notion that self-centeredness is the sole motivation the initiation of any action. He contends that self-interest cannot be separated from the ethical inclination. Moreover, Hobbes explains his ideals by using the psychological egoism concept (Feinberg 39). Psychological egoism views that individuals are always driven by self-absorption. People who perform acts of altruism do so to fulfill their own needs. It claims that people may help a person in need to end the distress they feel. Further, he maintains that human beings have deep-seated motives to benefit directly and indirectly even as they help others. Hobble’s standpoint is descriptive rather than normative (Feinberg 47). It highlights on how situations are rather than how they should be (Feinberg …show more content…
Different scholars have tried to justify views on acts of selfishness and selflessness. However, the use of self-interest to justify morality compromises the essence of human goodness. For instance, many psychologists argue that people respond to others’ situation due to shock, pain, alarm or fear (Korsgaard 49). For example, every individual who witnesses a car accident will automatically rush to help the victims. Psychologists explain the reaction as a means to end personal distress. They argue that people help others in order to help themselves. They concur that the good nature of most individuals is only a camouflaged kind of self-regard. This kind of thinking is misguided as it dismisses any existence of human kindness. For example, Hobbes was once seen giving some money to a beggar. When asked to explain his actions, he illustrated that he was trying to ease his own discomfort at seeing someone suffer (Korsgaard