1.

Psychological egoism (descriptive theory) is the view that people are

always motivated by self-interest.
a. Human beings act for the sake of their own best interest.
b. The idea is not that people sometimes or always act in their own
interests, but that this is the only thing that ultimately does
motivate people.
c. If they sometimes act for others, it is only because they think it is
in their own best interests to do so.
2. Ethical egoism (normative theory) is the view that whether or not
people are like this, they ought to be like this; usually this is advanced
in the form that rational behavior requires attempting to maximize selfinterest.
a. Individual ethical egoism. According to this version, I ought to
look out only for my own interests. I ought to be concerned about
others only to the extent that this concern also contributes to my
own interests.
b. Universal ethical egoism. According to this, everyone out to look
out for and seek only their own best interests.
3. Is ethical egoism a good theory?
a. Grounding in Psychological Egoism
b. Consistency or Coherence
i. Universal ethical egoism might be inconsistent or
incoherent. Could anyone consistently support such a
view? Wouldnt this mean that we would want our own best
interests served and at the same time be willing to allow
that others serve their interestseven to our own
detriment?
c. Derivation from Economic Theory
i. Adam Smith and other proponents of laissez-faire or
government-hands-off capitalism believe that self-interest
provides the best economic motivation.
ii. The idea is that when the profit motive or individual
incentives are absent, people will either not work or not
work as well.
iii. But if it is my land or my business, then I will be more likely
to take care of it than if the profits go to others or to the
government.
iv. In a system in which each person looks out for his or her
own economic interests, the general outcome will be best,
as though an invisible hand were guiding things.
v. But even if an economic system worked well, would this
prove that morality ought to be modeled on it? Is not the
moral life broader than the economic life? For example, are
all human relations economic relations?
d. Conformity to Commonsense Morality

i. Some elements of ethical egoism are contrary to

commonsense morality.
1. Doesnt it assume that anything is all right as long as
it serves an individuals best interests?
2. When not useful to ones interests, traditional virtues
of honesty, fidelity, and loyalty would have no value.
ii. But ethical egoists could argue on empirical or factual
grounds that the torturing of others is never in ones best
interests because this would make one less sensitive, and
being sensitive is generally useful to people.
1. Also, they might argue that the development of
traditional virtues is often in ones own best interest
because these traits are valued by society. My
possessing these traits may enable me to get what I
want more readily.
iii. Also, it may well be that people ought to take better care
of themselves. By having a high regard for ourselves, we
increase our self-esteem. We then depend less on others
and more on ourselves. We might also be stronger and
happier.
1. The altruist might be too self-effacing. He might be
said to lack proper regard for himself. There is also
some truth in the view that unless one takes care of
oneself, one is not of as much use to others.
4. Two Issues related to Ethical Egoism (further examination of the
relation between morality and egoism):
a. Suppose that a person cares for no one but herself. Would you
consider that person to be a moral person? This is not to ask
whether she is a morally good person, but rather whether one
can think of her as even operating in the moral realm, so to
speak.
i. Suppose we want to know whether a person has been
given a moral education.
ii. Someone might answer that she had because she had
been taught not to lie, to treat others kindly, not to drink to
excess, and to work hard.
iii. When asked what reason she had been given for behaving
thus, suppose she responded that she was taught not to lie
because others would not trust her if she did. She was
taught to treat others well because then they would treat
her well in return. She was taught to work hard because of
the satisfaction this brought her or because she would then
be better able to support herself. Would you consider her to
have been given a moral education?
iv. W.D. Falk (Morality, Self, and Others) thinks not.

1. He suggests that she was given counsels of

prudence, not morality. She was told what she
probably should do to succeed in certain ways in life.
She was taught the means that prudence would
suggest she use to secure her own self-interest.
2. In sum, the education would not have been a moral
one if it had been egoistically oriented. Do you
agree?
3. The point here is that morality always involves
impartiality.
b. Why be moral?