Introduction to Ethics

Photo: Colleen Hayes / NBC.

In Unit 3 of the course we move into Normative Ethics by considering to what extent (if any) we ought to consider the interests of others. The story of the Ring of Gyges from Plato’s Republic suggests that this question is a non-starter: it is simply human nature for a person to only care about promoting their own interests without a real concern for anyone else. This is a bold claim of Psychological Egoism, the subject of this module.

In our exploration of Psychological Egoism, we have three learning outcomes. By the end of this module, you will be able to…

Explain the meaning of Psychological Egoism and how the Ring of Gyges illustrates this idea,
Assess some arguments in favor of Psychological Egoism, and
Summarize the fundamental challenges underlying stronger forms of Psychological Egoism.

Read This:

The Ring of Gyges

Psychological Egoism

Context

As I will use it for this course, prudence refers to a general responsiveness to one’s own interests. So if I am solely interested in physical pleasure, it is prudent for me to do things that give me physical pleasure, while it is imprudent for me to avoid opportunities for such pleasure. Of course, you may be solely interested in intellectual accomplishment, so it is prudent for you to do things that lead to intellectual accomplishment, while it is imprudent for you to avoid seeking out such accomplishment. Meanwhile, another person may be solely interested in the happiness of their family, and so it is prudent for them to make their family happy, and so on.

In contrast with prudence, I will define altruism as a general responsiveness to the interests of others, even when doing so may require the sacrifice of one’s own interests.

Putting this together, we may define Psychological Egoism as a theory of human motivation claiming that a person primarily acts according to prudence. This theory can come in strong or weak forms:

Strong Psychological Egoism claims a person will always act prudentially, making altruism is impossible or abnormal.
Weak Psychological Egoism claims a person will often act prudentially, though altruism does occasionally occur and is normal.

Notice Psychological Egoism is a descriptive theory about human behavior. It tells us how people tend to behave, but not how they should behave.

Now in Plato’s Republic, the character Glaucon tells Socrates the story of a ring that can turn its wearer invisible (like the One Ring from The Lord of the Rings). The shepherd Gyges of Lydia finds the ring and uses it to do all sorts of horrible things. This story raises the interesting question: what would a moral and ethical person do with such a ring? Glaucon suggests that even a good person would also do horrible things because that person could get away with them.

Glaucon is therefore defending a very strong theory of Psychological Egoism, coupled with the rather cynical belief that the interests of people tend to be particularly selfish and potentially destructive to others. Indeed, most advocates of Psychological Egoism make similar assumptions.

The reading from James Rachels, however, casts doubt on this theory by revealing several difficulties that emerge from it.

Reading Questions

As you read, keep these questions in mind:

Based on how I have defined it, what do you think it actually means for you to be prudent? Is prudence about doing what makes you happy? Or is prudence about preserving your own life? Are these different or do they amount to the same thing? Or is prudence about something completely different from concerns with happiness or self-preservation?
According to Glaucon, most people do not really value justice and ethics. Instead people want to simply appear just and moral, merely so they may avoid punishments that come with being thought unjust and immoral. How is the story of the Ring of Gyges supposed to demonstrate the point? How might this be a statement of Psychological Egoism?
According to James Rachels, how might Psychological Egoism interpret Raoul Wallenberg’s actions?
What are the two arguments for Psychological Egoism presented by Rachels? How does Rachels criticize each of them?
What does Rachels claim to be the “deepest error” (2003, p. 72) with Psychological Egoism?

Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to answer questions like these on module quizzes and the unit exams.