Arguments Against Psychological Egoism

In this essay, I will defend psychological egoism as the most probable explanation for moral choice and motivation. I hold psychological egoism to be “the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do, that is, that the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self-interest” (Rachels 233). Since every action is moved by a desire to be satisfied, even in supposedly altruistic acts, one acts on a desire to satisfy one’s desire, so that supposedly altruistic acts are not actually altruistic. James Rachels, to whom my defining of psychological egoism is attributed, counters psychological egoism as incorrect moral skepticism. In the form of a Platonic dialogue, I will present, if successful, the impossibility for any ‘moral’ conduct beyond psychological egoism, counteracting Rachels own refutation in his essay, “Egoism and Moral Scepticism.” The dialogue will conclude with an explanation of psychological egoism as …show more content…
Let us consider a suggestion you made reference to yourself, it being that unselfishness is superficial because the “point of the action is really to achieve a pleasant state of consciousness, rather than to bring about any good for others” (Rachels 235). This implies that unselfish acts produce self-satisfaction, so that even when doing something one feels under the oath of others to do, a sort of hedonism is acted upon. This is wrong due to a confusion of definition. Even if a person receives satisfaction from altruism, is it not the case that “the unselfish man [is] precisely the one who does derive satisfaction from helping others, while the selfish man does not?” (235). A truly selfish person would not be bothered to seek the pleasure of an honorable conscience. Take your reluctant tutor, for example; by desiring the welfare of his friend, he derives satisfaction from the selfless fulfillment of the deed, not by the feeling of pleasure as the sole object of desire