An argument against egoism

An Evolutionary Argument Against Egoism Philosopher Elliott Sober and biologist David Sloan Wilson have made careful and sophisticated arguments for the falsity of psychological egoism directly from considerations in evolutionary biology.

The point is that the theses are contraries: Toward a Pluralism of Prosocial Motives. An ethical egoist might reply by taking the cooperation argument further.

It recommends to A that A go to the game, and to B that B go to the game, but is silent on the value of A and B both attending the game. Perhaps Butler's point is best seen as a formidable objection to a certain kind of argument for egoism, rather than a positive argument against the theory.

Reprinted in part in Raphael Vol. The new premise seems to amount to nothing more than the denial of psychological egoism: To make the point in a different way — I would not take steps to ensure that only one of B and C come about. My welfare might consist simply in the satisfaction of self-regarding desires.

That is, the premises, even if true, fail to establish the conclusion. And I do have reason to care specially about other people who bear these connections to me now. I might be required by my non-egoist morality to make a sacrifice for which I cannot be compensated or pass up a gain so large that passing it up will not be compensated for.

MODERATORS

I do not, for example, escape a duty to save a drowning person, when I can easily do so, just because the drowning person or anyone watching happens never to be able to offer fruitful cooperation or retaliation.

A host of experiments have similarly disconfirmed a range of egoistic hypotheses. An Evolutionary Argument Against Egoism Philosopher Elliott Sober and biologist David Sloan Wilson have made careful and sophisticated arguments for the falsity of psychological egoism directly from considerations in evolutionary biology.

There are possibilities other than maximization. An overview of the philosophical, evolutionary, and psychological work relevant to the egoism-altruism debate.

After all, moral theories such as Kantianism, utilitarianism, and common-sense morality require that an agent give weight to the interests of others. One could then, if one wished, argue for ethical egoism from rational egoism and the plausible claim that the best moral theory must tell me what I have most reason to do.

One reason the present-aim theory is important is that it shows there is a coherent, more minimal alternative to rational egoism. For example, sociobiologists, such as E.

But this revision would plausibly make the argument question-begging. As a rational egoist, I claim that I ought to maximize the welfare of one person myself.

Perhaps something like utilitarianism is justified as self-evident rather than inferred from some other reasons. So the ground of my care is not identity, but rather the psychological connections through memories, etc. If I defend favoring blue-eyed people simply by noting that I like blue-eyed people, without any justification for my liking, this seems unsatisfactory.

But rational egoism and kin altruism do make opposed recommendations.

What are the arguments against ethical egoism?

As a theory, it is false since it cannot be generalized without contradiction. However, evidence for this dependence claim has not been forthcoming.

There is another recent argument against rational egoism Rachels and AlterTersmanand especially de Lazari-Radek and Singer This doctrine is a descriptive generalization of "what is" apart from what ought to be. The point is that we must avoid simple leaps from biology to psychology without substantial argument see also Stich et al.

The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Unless I can explain why blue-eyed people are to be preferred, my claim looks arbitrary, in the sense that I have given no reason for the different treatments.

Now say half of my brain will go in B and half in C. In this case, it is insufficient to describe how we are motivated; what is relevant is a description of how we would be motivated were we rational. Or say that I am A and an ethical egoist.The basic argument against egoism is that it hurts your groups and since you are depending on your groups, it decreases your chances to survive and procreate.

The rational thing to do is finding a reasonable compromise between egoism and altruism to maximize your chances of.

Bishop Joseph Butler provides a famous argument against psychological egoism (focusing on hedonism) in his Fifteen Sermons. The key passage is the following: That all particular appetites and passions are towards external things themselves.

Feb 29,  · Another argument against "ethical" egoism is "rational" egoism. This form is the actual "ought" because it applies to what the egoist determines for himself is the "qua" of Man, to which he then applies his bistroriviere.com: Resolved.

Feb 29,  · Another argument against "ethical" egoism is "rational" egoism. This form is the actual "ought" because it applies to what the egoist determines for himself is the "qua" of Man, to which he then applies his bistroriviere.com: Resolved.

A fourth argument against ethical egoism is just that: ethical egoism does not count as a moral theory. One might set various constraints on a theory's being a moral theory. Many of these constraints are met by ethical egoism — the formal constraints, for example, that moral claims must be prescriptive and universalizable.

Arguments for and against ethical egoism (bistroriviere.comlosophy) submitted 3 years ago by ajcut5 I am preparing for a debate on if ethical egoism is reasonable to believe in.

Download
An argument against egoism
Rated 5/5 based on 60 review