Transcript Egoism

Philosophy 223
Relativism and Egoism
Remember This Slide?
 Ethical reflection on the dictates of morality can
address these sorts of issues in at least three
different ways.
 Descriptive analysis of the actual content of morality.
 Conceptual study of moral concepts.
 Normative Ethics: “prescriptive study attempting to
formulate and defend basic moral norms…aims at
determining what ought to be done…[not] what is, in fact,
practiced” (7).
 Applied Ethics: defined “misleadingly” as the use
of normative principles “to treat specific moral
problems” (8).
Defined “Misleadingly”
 “Applied” encourages a serious
misunderstanding: that the attempt to specify
(8) the practical implications of normative
theory (normative principles) on specific issues
involves making moral judgments.
 Moral Judgments are made by Moral Agents
(folks like us, though in a way to be specified).
 In fact, we are judging creatures.
 How good are we at it?
The Role of Judgment
 Judgment: the application of a principle or
general rule to a particular (instance,
entity, kind, etc.).
 How might “specifying” the principle help?
 What are the features of good judgment?
 How can judgment go wrong?
Relativism and Judgment
 Ethical Relativism: the view that the scope of
application of moral principles is always less
than the whole of the moral community.
 ER is a species of relativism. The genera is the
(common) recognition that people disagree
(judgments do vary).
 Making the general claim is non-controversial.
 Making the specific claim is a much different
matter.
What’s the difference?
 There is an important difference between
noting that people disagree about what is
right, and asserting that what is right is
relative.
 The former is a description of the world, the
latter claim is a normative claim: “it delineates
which standards or norms correctly determine
right and wrong behavior” (8).
 That is, the obvious fact that people disagree is
not enough to establish it.
 We have to instead ask if there is any good
reason to be relativists.
No Good Reasons
 Extent of the disagreement that can be observed is more limited
than we might think.
 Significant differences in judgment ultimately understood as
application of shared principles.
 The disagreement that does exist often turns out to be a
disagreement about facts.
 Thus, while there is relativism of judgment (people do disagree),
but little reason to believe that there is significant relativism of
standards.
 Even if we could find a fundamental difference in standards that
wasn’t resolvable by factual agreement, that doesn’t rule out
that one is just wrong.
 It doesn’t fit the evidence.
Can we Just Disagree?
 Moral disagreement is ineliminable,
but we don’t need to give up.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Refine our factual understanding.
Seek Clear Definitions of concepts.
Use of examples to guide judgment.
Analyze and evaluate differing views.
From Relativism to Egoism
 If we push ER to it’s most extreme form, we
end up with the view that right and wrong is
determined relative to individuals and their
interests. This extreme view is very close
conceptually to egoism.
 Egoism: “all choices either do involve or should
involve self-promotion as their sole objective”
(13).
 Egoism is a position commonly articulated in
business contexts
 Free-Market theory, with its emphasis on rationalizing
individual interests, seems to underwrite egoism.
Two Species of Egoism
 Psychological Egoism: as a matter of
psychological fact, everyone is motivated to
act to satisfy their perceived self-interest.
 Ethical Egoism: Normative ethical claim
asserting that the supreme principle of
conduct requires us to maximize our
individual self interest relative to the
interests of others.
Psychological Egoism
 PE is an attempt to provide an explanation
for human conduct.
 No justification involved.
 What about morality?
 PE rules out the possibility of altruism: unselfish
concern for the interests of others.
 Most moral principles seem to require that
people conform to them whether or not it’s in
their interests to do so. If PE is true, this
requirement seems impossible.
Should We Accept PE?
 As an explanation of behavior, PE is testable
by observation and other forms of empirical
analysis.
 What about your own experience?
 Psychological data undercuts the
universalistic pretensions of PE (see p.15).
Ethical Egoism
 Unlike PE, EE is not an attempt to describe
or explain how people actually work, but
rather to specify how they should work (it’s
a prescriptive claim).
 Clearly, EE conflicts with the common
understanding of how morality works.
 Understood as a form of relativism, EE has the
problems of relativistic ethical theories.
 Like PE, EE seems to exclude reference to other’s
interests, but most moral principles require such
reference.
Should We Accept EE?
 Business people are commonly advocates of a
form of enlightened EE.
 Only a very narrow understanding of self-interest
precludes recognition of the advantage of living under
a system of laws, and thus EE is perfectly consistent
with the laws and regulations governing business
practices.
 But EE has some significant problems as an
ethical theory.
 Can’t account for, or resolve, conflicts of interest.
 Produces logically inconsistent results.
 Is unacceptably arbitrary.
What Should Ethical Theories
Exhibit?

We’ve considered and seen reasons to reject
two attempts to specify the constraints
under which our moral decision making
should operate.


What have we learned in the process?
There are some general features which
acceptable Ethical Theories should exhibit.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Determinacy: produces normative verdicts
Consistency: in normative verdicts
Intuitive Appeal: verdicts should be consistent with our
intuitions.
Explanatory Power: ability to account for considered
moral judgments.