Psychological Egoism vs. Ethical Egoism
In “The Ring of Gyges”, a sheperd named Gyges finds a magical ring that can make him invisible. Gyges uses this power to “seduce the Queen” (although I wonder how being invisible could have helped him accomplish that!) and murder the King. Glaucon argues that anyone would have done exactly what the Sheperd had done (pursued their own interests selfishly) since there would be no way of getting caught.
Rachels disagrees with Glaucon, and argues against psychological egoism. He uses the example of a guy named Smith, who sacrifices his chance to go on vacation in order to stay behind and help a friend in need. Rachels says that from an egoist point of view, this is still a selfish action, because Smith is after all, doing what he most wants to do. However, Rachels argues that since Smith wants to help his friend, he is not acting selfishly. In other words “If I want only my own good, and care nothing for others, then I am selfish: but if I also want other people to be well-off and happy, and if I act on that desire, then my action is not selfish (330).”
Another argument from an egoist point of view is that perhaps Smith only wanted to help his friend in order to avoid the guilt he might otherwise feel if he were to go on vacation instead of helping his friend. Therefore, he only helped his friend in order to feel better about himself. Rachels says however, “the unselfish man is precisely the one who does derive satisfaction from helping others, while the selfish man does not (330).”
Rachels points out three mistakes/confusions that occur within the psychological egoist theory. First, egoists confuse self-interest with selfishness. An example from the book is that brushing one’s teeth is to act in self-interest, but it is not selfish because it does not disregard the needs of others.
The next confusion is the split between altruism and self-interest. In these views, altruism and happiness are not compatible with one another. But in real life, situations are not always so clear, and there tends to be a gray area. Rachels points out that altruism and self-interest can coexist within one action. Actions don’t always have to be one or the other.
The last confusion is the notion that a person can’t desire their own happiness and interest, and that of other people at the same time. Just because sometimes other people’s interests are in conflict with our own, personal happiness does not have to occur at the expense of another person’s happiness, and vice-versa.
Rachels also argues against ethical egoism, the belief that one should act out of self-interest. His main point is that an ethical egoist philosophy cannot be universally applied without contradicting itself. Universal means that it applies to every person, in every situation. But an egoist, acting in his self-interest, would not want other people to be egoists. “The rational egoist then, cannot advocate that egoism be universally adopted by everyone. For he wants a world in which his own interests are maximized; and if other people adopted this egoistic policy of pursuing their own interests to the exclusion of his, as he pursues his interests to the exclusion of theirs, then such a world would be impossible (333).” The egoist wouldn’t want people to act how he acts, because then they would care more about their own interests and less about his.
Rachels concludes that people do not always have to be motivated by selfishness. Sometimes people act kindly simply “for the sake of being kind”, not as a means to an end. There doesn’t have to be any other reason than that.
