Psychological originated from the Greek word psyche, meaning soul or mind of humans. On the other hand, ology means the “study of”. The word egoism is base on the Greek word ego for “I”. Hence, Psychological egoism is the study of human mind related to one-self. Psychological egoism is the name given for the theory of descriptive egoist. Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory resulting from observations from human behavior. As such, it can only be a true empirical theory if there are no exceptions. In science, a purported law only needs one disconfirming instance to disprove it. According to Victor Reppert (1989), he points out that psychological egoism is a descriptive theory and not a normative theory. Victor (1989) explained that it’s a theory of what we humans ‘actually’ do, and not a theory of what we ‘should’ do. Further more, Victor (1989) claims that there are two psychological egoism theories. One, strong psychological egoism is the view that humans indeed act base on selfishness to benefit one-self even thou humans disguise their motivation with reference of duty and in the name of helping others. Second, weak psychological egoism is the view that humans often, but not always, act out of selfishness for one-self. In The Leviathan, by Hobbes (1660), it put forward that “No man giveth but with intention of good to himself; because gift is voluntary; and of all voluntary acts the object to every man is his own pleasure." Hobbes (1660) asserts that human always, in one way or another, act wholly according to human nature being self-centered and self-motivated. However, opponents argue that psychological egoism renders ethics useless. If human always and only act selfishly for one’s own welfare, there is no purpose of the existence of ethics, since being selfish is a natural human nature. Critics often argue that an act of altruism for example, giving a poor stranger some money, or, a soldier’s act of throwing himself on a grenade to save his platoon is not necessary an act of selfishness. However, it is refuted that altruistic behavior is indeed not an act of selfishness but altruistic behavior arouse the desire of self-satisfaction. The natural acquirement of self-satisfaction is regarded as a by-product of altruistic behavior. A parent making several sacrifices for his/her children, in return, the achievement obtain by the children arose the parent’s sense of proud and honor. In other words, parents obtain a natural self-satisfaction base on the excellent achievement of their children. This parental act is committed without any conscious and intention of selfishness, but regardless is unable to quadrant off that the act is not self-motivated in order to obtain self-satisfaction of one’s own interest. Moreover, we cannot categorize the satisfaction of buying a new car, the satisfaction of marriage or even the satisfaction of having mountains of money as the same satisfaction we obtain from altruistic behavior. Thus, it is not an act of selfishness. However, it still supports the theory of psychological egoism that humans do naturally act base on self-interest. This idea is supported by James (1941), “The good feelings are a by-product; they are not what we are really after. Thus, having those feelings is not a mark of selfishness.” In a similar situation of Mother Teresa’s case, the nun who spent her life working among the poor in Calcutta is often cited as a perfect example of unselfishness. But of course, Mother Teresa believes in being hand-somely rewarded in her afterlife in heaven. It would explain her self-sacrificing behavior throughout her life. At this point, psychological egoism’s validity turns on examining and analyzing moral motivation, the desire of a more meaningful and significant life, desire of public recognition, feeling of personal satisfaction and the believe of heavenly reward. However, since motivation of such is fully private and only personally mind-accessible and inaccessible to others, the theory shifts from a theoretical description of human nature to an assumption about the inner workings of human nature as whole, therefore it becomes a “closed theory”. A closed theory is a theory that rejects competing theories on its own terms and is non-verifiable and non-falsifiable. Gregory Kavka (1986) pg 64-80 calls the act of altruistic behavior as “predominant egoism:” we act unselfishly only rarely and then typically where the sacrifice is small and the welfare to others is large or where those benefiting are friends, family, or favorite causes. It is also categorized into two cases: Charity and pity. Firstly, charity is the most general term that is used to describe the “act of concern” for others around us. Secondly, pity is the feeling of sympathy to those that are in need, reminded by our self that in the future we may share the same misfortune, and in their position, we too hope that someone will help us.
Almost everyone will act against their short-term self-interest in order to obtain a greater long-term self interest. Students will stay up all night to get a term paper done even though the short-term effects are disadvantageous of example, loss of sleep, lack of attention in class, and disadvantageous effects on health. This is a very solid example of the psychological egoism theory. Even thou one may have acted selflessly, but one is still doing so in order to obtain a long-term self-interest. Confusion arises between the difference of selfishness and self-interest. When one visits a doctor due to poor health reason, it is an act of self-interest. It would be silly to accuse the person being selfish! Selfish is in the case where the interest of others are ignored, when it should not be ignored. Another example is when one takes a considerable amount of food for her/himself it would be of self-interest, but it would be selfish if one hordes mountains of food when others have not had their fair share.
Several voices pointed out one main error of the psychological egoism theory. As the theory is in other words, a hypothesis in an experiment, and is considered irrefutable by many intelligent people of the moral philosophy field, it is reassuming the role of controlling assumption: Once a hypothesis is accepted, everything can be interpreted to support it. The hypothesis of psychological egoism is faulty because it is untestable. Take the hypothesis that all swans are white for example. So, one can go around the world looking for a swan blue of red in colour to prove the hypothesis wrong. We can imagine how it will be if swans are blue and red in colour, although we cannot prove it true, because there is no swan in blue or red. In this case, we can strongly conclude that swans are white in colour. The theory is faulty because of this error, if we cannot imagine what an unselfish and non self-interest act would be like, we cannot investigate and try to prove it wrong. It is therefore an empty theory. It can only be concluded that humans naturally obey the theory of psychological egoism. Obeying it as the Law of Psychological egoism.
No comments:
Post a Comment