Human nature is general psychological qualities regarded to be shared by all humans to some degree. Yet, what those qualities that are human nature has been debated for thousands of years. In chapter 5 (Psychological Egoism) of James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Rachels refutes the arguments of psychological egoism. While there are many humans that are motivated by self-interest, it is wrong to assume that all humans have the same motivation.
In the beginning of the chapter, Rachels opens with an anecdote about Raoul Wallenberg, who was a Swedish businessman who traveled to Budapest and helped save the lives of thousands of Jews from Hitler’s final solution. Within the text, he provides a definition of psychological egoism …show more content…
To outline the story, Mr. Lincoln and another passenger are having a discussion on whether or not all men acted only on selfishness, Lincoln in support of the claim. Later on Lincoln notices some pigs about to drown in a slough, so he quickly dives in to rescue them. At that point the passenger asks how Lincoln could say all men act out of selfishness after he saved the pigs. Lincoln responses, saying that he would not have peace of mind if he left those pigs to die. At first glance it is apparent to see how this situation aligns nicely with psychological egoism, but this actually brings one of the flaws of the theory to surface. The issue with this situation is a question stated within the text, “Why should we think, merely because someone derives satisfaction from helping others, that this makes him selfish?” (Rachels 69-70). Contrarily, it makes more sense if Lincoln was unselfish. Rachels states that Lincoln achieving personally peace of mind by performing an unselfish act shows that he is “compassionate and good-hearted,” which are also other qualities that challenge the theory of psychological egoism. If this situation were to support the theory, Lincoln would not have been bothered by the suffering and possible death of the pigs, and would not have gone out of his way to rescue them. That would be a display of selfish behavior. After discussing this, Rachels then asks the question, why would we feel good by helping others? He immediately replies with “...the kind of person who cares about what happens to other people,” (Rachels 70). He explains that while we desire various objects, and get satisfaction when we receive them, that satisfaction does not drive us. It is the desire of the object that motivates us. Applying it to the Lincoln and pigs example, while Lincoln was satisfied when he saved the pigs, it was not his motive. His reason for jumping out of the train car was to save the
In the beginning of the chapter, Rachels opens with an anecdote about Raoul Wallenberg, who was a Swedish businessman who traveled to Budapest and helped save the lives of thousands of Jews from Hitler’s final solution. Within the text, he provides a definition of psychological egoism …show more content…
To outline the story, Mr. Lincoln and another passenger are having a discussion on whether or not all men acted only on selfishness, Lincoln in support of the claim. Later on Lincoln notices some pigs about to drown in a slough, so he quickly dives in to rescue them. At that point the passenger asks how Lincoln could say all men act out of selfishness after he saved the pigs. Lincoln responses, saying that he would not have peace of mind if he left those pigs to die. At first glance it is apparent to see how this situation aligns nicely with psychological egoism, but this actually brings one of the flaws of the theory to surface. The issue with this situation is a question stated within the text, “Why should we think, merely because someone derives satisfaction from helping others, that this makes him selfish?” (Rachels 69-70). Contrarily, it makes more sense if Lincoln was unselfish. Rachels states that Lincoln achieving personally peace of mind by performing an unselfish act shows that he is “compassionate and good-hearted,” which are also other qualities that challenge the theory of psychological egoism. If this situation were to support the theory, Lincoln would not have been bothered by the suffering and possible death of the pigs, and would not have gone out of his way to rescue them. That would be a display of selfish behavior. After discussing this, Rachels then asks the question, why would we feel good by helping others? He immediately replies with “...the kind of person who cares about what happens to other people,” (Rachels 70). He explains that while we desire various objects, and get satisfaction when we receive them, that satisfaction does not drive us. It is the desire of the object that motivates us. Applying it to the Lincoln and pigs example, while Lincoln was satisfied when he saved the pigs, it was not his motive. His reason for jumping out of the train car was to save the