Ethical Egoism vs. Psychological Egoism | What is Ethical Egoism …

What Is Ethical Egoism?

Ethical egoism is a philosophical concept premised on the ethical justification to do what is best for oneself. In general, ethical egoism argues that it is ethically correct to prioritize the individual self (I) above others. The question then becomes, does an action or inaction benefit the individual self? According to this concept, determining what benefits the self will then determine ethical justifications. In other words, an ethical obligation to "I" supersedes the ethical considerations of others.

It is important to note that ethical egoism, as opposed to other forms of egoism, claims that humans ought to be self-interested. Ethical egoism is considered a normative theory of ethics because it makes a moral judgment about what is ethically right or wrong. Because ethical calculations or consequences are factored in the end result to determine ethical conclusions, ethical egoism falls under the umbrella of consequential ethical theory. Simply put, the consequences for oneself determine what is ethically correct and what one ought to do.

To better understand ethical egoism, it bares to understand what ethical egoism is not. If the phrase "take one for the team" seems problematic, that is because it is at odds with the concept of ethical egoism. Rather than sacrifice oneself for the team, an individual ought to consider the consequences and do what is best for oneself. Therefore, ethical egoism differs from another consequential ethical theory, utilitarianism. Analyzing utilitarianism, Henry Sidgwick, the 19th-century philosopher who wrote The Methods of Ethics in 1874, advances the idea of egoism concerning utilitarianism's emphasis on the greatest good for the greatest number. Sidgwick applies his method of ethics to differentiate from what ought to be versus what is as it stands. Furthermore, Sidgwick's ethical study and emphasis on ought versus is continues as he tries to reconcile egoism with utilitarianism, even extending his ethical analysis to politics. Considering politics as Sidgwick does and its relationship to ethics is an essential argument against ethical egoism.

Individuals do not exist in a vacuum but rather as part of society. Hence, some would argue that an individual cannot separate oneself from societal conduct or norms. Therefore, cultural, societal, and even economic parameters determine one's self-interest. In other words, how do people objectively measure maximizing the good per each individual if every individual is exercising ethical egoism (what they ought to do in benefit of oneself) over other individuals? This argument can be advanced further by questioning whether an individual objectively knows what is best or can distinguish between short-term and long-term consequences. Otherwise, people are to conclude that there are no universal morals since each individual ought to pursue one's own self-interest different from the interest of others.

The Prisoner's Dilemma, a well-known philosophical thought experiment, illustrates ethical egoism and its practical application. Although the Prisoner's Dilemma has variations, the basic setup involves two alleged partners in crime now held prisoners (A and B) in two separate cells; the two prisoners cannot coordinate with one another. Whichever prisoner confesses guilt will minimize the potential years sentenced. Keep in mind that the prisoners have no way of coordinating or knowing what the other prisoner will do.

This model complicates any comfortable notions about self-interest. It may appear evident that a confession from one prisoner to minimize a prison sentence would be in that prisoner's best self-interest; however, upon closer inspection, both prisoners would be better served not to confess. In other words, if both prisoners keep from confessing, then neither will have confessed to the alleged crime. Hence, their best self-interest is to act against their best self-interest; in addition, to act on one's best self-interest by confessing is not in one's best self-interests. Yes, it is counterintuitive and points to the contradictory possibilities within ethical egoism. Therefore, the Prisoner's Dilemma interrogates whether ethical egoism across the board with everyone acting in self-interest would be the best for everyone.

Psychological egoism is a philosophical concept that claims humans, by nature, are selfish and motivated by self-interest. In general, regardless of being fully aware or not, individuals will ultimately act in their self-interest by default. There are no ethical considerations, less so ethical obligations, to be self-interested. Humans are already predisposed to act in their self-interests; human nature is selfishness according to psychological egoism.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who authored Leviathan in 1651, claimed that humans are rationally self-interested by nature. Therefore, psychological egoism must be considered when evaluating moral and political philosophy. Moreover, psychological egoism pervades all individuals in a state of nature. Thus, unchecked humans would war against one another, fighting for power and resources. However, due to individuals being rationally self-interested, it would be in the best interest of each individual to enter into a social contract, according to Hobbes. For example, we respect the property and wellbeing of others only as far as it preserves our own property and wellbeing. Psychology egoism persists, whether in a state of nature or a society of laws because human self-interest will drive humans to fight for self-preservation and resources or contractually recognize an authority that ensures self-preservation and resources.

See more here:

Ethical Egoism vs. Psychological Egoism | What is Ethical Egoism ...