Ethical and Psychological Egoism Essay

At first glance the theories of ethical egoism and psychological egoism may seem to be very similar, but in fact they differ greatly with respect to their status as making prescriptive or descriptive claims. Ethical egoism is a consequentialist ethical theory that argues each individual should seek to do what is solely in his or her self-interest, and in this fashion it makes a prescriptive claim. Moseley (2006) describes it in this way: â€Å"it is always moral to promote one’s own good, and it is never moral not to promote it. † Similarly, Rand (1964) defines it with respect to selfishness: â€Å"The attack on ‘selfishness’ is an attack on man’s self-esteem; to surrender one is to surrender the other† (p. 7). Therefore, for example, when facing the moral question of whether or not to buy Fairtrade coffee, ethical egoism dictates that the individual should not necessarily think about the employees who pick the beans in Columbia, but should instead consider whether or not buying Fairtrade will give that individual a good image, improve his or her own context, etc. In its strong version, ethical egoism asserts that it is always morally correct to seek one’s own good and never moral to not seek the same, whereas the weak version argues for the former, but not the latter. In this respect, according to strong ethical egoism, I should buy Fairtrade coffee only because of how it benefits me and the thought of benefit for any other person should not even be a consideration. The weak theory, however, still insists I buy the coffee because it benefits me, but it will not necessary condemn me if I also consider the benefit my purchase may bring to Columbian workers for their own sakes. Psychological egoism, in contrast to ethical egoism, is a purely descriptive theory in that it attempts to describe the way in which humans function: it claims the â€Å"fact† that every individual’s actions are driven solely by self-interested ends. However, in this descriptive theory there lies a problematic fallacy. Once one accepts the premise of psychological egoism, namely that everything an individual does is out of concern for self-interest, it is impossible to offer any counter-examples to the theory. For example, if I am a captain of a ship and have decided my crew is planning a mutiny against me, every action that the crew does, whether hostile or simply unimportant, will be interpreted by me as supporting my mutiny hypothesis. In other words, the theory of psychological egoism is simply non-falsifiable. A further difference between ethical egoism and psychological egoism is the doctrine of motivation that undergirds each. Because psychological egoism is merely a descriptive theory, it draws its motivation from nature, or simply â€Å"the way things are†. In this respect, a philosopher like Hobbes (1651) can argue for his contract theory of the state in order to thwart the natural inclinations of humanity to kill one another. His starting assumption is that the state of nature serves as the foundation or motivation for psychological egoism. On the other hand, ethical egoism as a prescriptive theory derives its motivation from the desires of the individual to maximize his or her own self-interests. Self-interest does not mean selfishness, per se, insofar as selfishness pushes for the maximization of individual gains without consideration of others. Rather self-interest may have a communal aspect which allows for achievement of personal goods that, though directed toward the benefit of the individual, may in fact correspond with achievement of goods for others (see footnote 1). Hobbes, T. (1651) Leviathan. Forgotten Books ebook. Retrieved from http://www. forgottenbooks. org Moseley, A/ (2006) Egoism. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www. cep. utm. edu/e/egoism. htm Rand, A. (1964) The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet, 1970