What is Psychological Egoism? Psychological Egoism Definition, Explanation, and Objections
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Hey, Ben here and today’s will answer the question “can I discuss what psychological egoism is and are people only motivated by self-interest, even in the case of seemingly altruistic acts?”
So as usual, I’ll go over the definition and explain what psychological egoism is. Then, I’ll discuss if this philosophy is rational or not and include what some of the major objections against it are.
Psychological egoism is a theory of egoism. Egoism being a philosophy concerned with the self’s role, or ego, as the motivation and goal of one's own action.
Specifically, psychological egoism believes that people are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seems to be acts of altruism. This is a descriptive philosophy, meaning it only claims how things are, not how they ought to be as opposed to a normative philosophy which is about how things should be.
The formation of the philosophy is credited to Thomas Hobbes and Jeremy Bentham. Watch the video for the explanation and objections.
=== =Subscribe on UA-cam and turn on the notification bell to get more videos: tinyurl.com/th...
Because the notification bell only sends to a small percentage due to algorithm changes, get notified about new videos and bonus extras here via email after you subscribe on UA-cam: tinyurl.com/th... =====
So far, I think psychological egoism is true-even though we don't realize it or want to admit it to ourselves. I've seen a few things in my life that clearly suggested to me that at least a great many people actually do altruistic-seeming acts primarily because of the positive image it allows them to have in society and to themselves, and that is the actual biggest motivator.
I am yet to have a conversation with someone regarding psychological egoism, where my opinion has been even remotely threatened. I have a background in Psychology, with a strong interest and neuropsychology. Utilising extremely old opinions of psychological egoism is rudimentary at best, particularly because definitions change, and so to does our knowledge. The current research around psychological egoism exists, although, what is more useful for the debate is not research around psychological egoism itself, but more broadly, psychological research in general.
Improving our understanding of how our brains work in its entirety, is far more beneficial than singling out psychological egoism. Moreover, there is strong evidence for psychological egoism from our current understanding of neurochemistry. The main reason people believe psychological egoism not to be true, is because they think of a scenario where there is no direct positive outcome, your animal shelter scenario for example. However, as I point out to anyone I discuss this with, it's not always so transparent. Once, I was told a similar example, whereby they claimed that they had helped their friend so much, that it both emotionally and financially effected them. Here, psychological egoism would say, okay, but you did get dopamine when you did something good? Or perhaps not only dopamine, but also the RISK of cortisol, causing stress or guilt of not helping - very common in people pleasers. Risk, I have found is not talked about, but something I think is particularly important. The sheer risk of not helping someone, in itself causes discomfort. We are comfort seeking missiles, if you will. We love things that make us feel good and safe, and dislike things that either cause or have a risk of causing stress or negative emotions (insert neurotransmitters responsible for negative feelings).
After all, the degree to which you are an empath for example, relies on neurochemicals... Every personality trait does. So, am I good person because I am an empath? Or is it just lucky that I have a certain brain structure and density?
And to finish up, anecdotally, I have seen most people actually agree with egoism and there are many people below also showing this. It's a theory for a reason and not a hypothesis. There is significant evidence for it, people are just too unaware, don't want to, or are just completely oblivious to their brains functioning to admit it.
I think psychological egoism is not so much a theory as a truism. Every decision stems from the self. A selfless decision is therefore an oxymoron. Even if you decide to help other people it is because you WANT to help and therefore are fulfilling your own desires. In that sense it's impossible to not be true and therefore is a truism.
Well instead of saying they did it because they wanted to, they may say that they didn’t want to , but it was their duty to do it. Your opinion cannot be 100% disproven, and neither can my objection, because the persons motivation is in their mind and you cannot experience it first hand to prove if it is accurate or inaccurate.
Ultimately every human action has an intention to make things better for that human whether that human themselves is aware of it or not. In your example a mother's sacrifice of her life to save her child is altruistic but still satisfies the mother's internal wish to priorities her child's life over her own, the same mother in the same circumstance only saving a stranger's dog would not sacrifice her life to do so, and thereby there is an element of selfishness (for her own world view's benefit) in her actions in sacrificing herself to save her child.
There is not a conflict between being altruistic and being selfish, as there appears to be at face value, an action can be simultaneously both IMHO.
Every voluntary action by definition means doing something you intend or want to do. However the reason for doing something intentionally does not necessarily mean that you are ultimately doing it to benefit yourself (this is a conflation between the origin of an action and the intended beneficiary). It seems quite plausible to me that someone can voluntarily carry out an action with genuinely no intention for it to benefit themselves. Simply claiming that people always act selfishly whether they are aware of it or not is a claim about the world and lacks the empirical evidence needed to justify the truth of that claim.
@@Spideysenses67 'with genuinely no intention for it to benefit themselves' I agree, it's possible, consciously to decide/act with no intention to benefit themselves at all directly but the action/decision, at the moment it takes place, still supports that person's personal world view & wishes and is thereby satisfying n thereby there is an element of selfishness even when consciously the person and other observers are convinced their action is totally utterly selfless.
We all, as mammals, create a model of reality in our brain, the brain senses reality indirectly via electrical input generated by sensory organs eyes, ears etc and perpetually builds and updates that model and we act according to that model / personal perception of reality, I believe there is plenty of empirical evidence to justify this claim ... & so as you say 'Every voluntary action by definition means doing something you intend or want to do.' - it's in how the brain works in the first place.
But the issue with this is, that there can be in some example such as this with the mother and child, whereby there is no positive outcome for the mother (other to be labelled a hero/in high regard to others). But even if you remove that and agree there is no positive, there is still the RISK of negative outcome. There is a risk that if she let her child die, she would be blamed. There is the risk she would feel guilty or be remorseful for not saving the child. So ultimately, she still saved the child selfishly, because she HAD to in terms of societal expectations. If she didn't, what would happen? How would she feel? How would other peoples opinions and statements afterward make her feel? Negatively.
Humans do not like discomfort. We like to be warm, full, and safe. We do not like be freezing, hungry and unsafe. It's the same thing for cognitive dissonance. We get so emotional when we have feelings of discomfort, like someone disagreeing with us on a core belief and realising your belief is or might be wrong. We do not like discomfort. We will do nice things to feel good. We will do nice things to NOT feel bad. I don't like good or bad, which is why I prefer comfortability.
Thanks for the video Ben. My favourite reply to psychological egoism is Joel Feinberg's objection that psychological egoism appears to be an analytic truth disguised as a synthetic one. In short, the psychological egoist appears to be guilty of assimilating selfishness into the very definition of any and all "action", thus making the view immune from empirical counter evidence but also stripping it of any descriptive content.
The willingness and act of doing something is intentional. There are two parts of the intention: the motive and the work.
The motive can be to just get something done: an objective. It can also be ulterior. It can be ulterior towards others in a positive or negative way. In a positive way it can be to do something for someone. In a negative way it can be to do something against or inimical to someone. It can also be ulterior towards one's self. It can be to do something for personal gain or to spite, or harm one's self.
If the motive is an objective it is called duty. Duty is doing something for the sake of the thing being done and not for ulterior motives. Neither in consideration of others or for one's self.
Duty and its sense is not something we are born with. It is inculcated by the social unit we belong to. Whether that is family or bureaucracy or military or religion or whatever people who feed and protect us. Duty is the minimum activity required by the unit to remain in the unit. It is forced on us till accepted.
Besides the motive there is the work itself. The work can go from simple to complex. Depending on this the work takes a toll called stress. Stress is always inimical to the self, and not just the physical body but the mental endurance as well. In all societies work is balanced by external reward. This goes for capitalist as well as communist societies. In subsistence communities, such as hunter gatherers or farming or animal husbandry, the work gives the reward. In capitalist and communist or socialist societies the reward is something besides the work itself. Either money, capital, in capitalist societies or what passes for trade in communist societies.
In science fiction there is another society where work is also the reward as in subsistence cultures. These are the the scientifically advanced cultures whose needs are met by machines. Food, shelter, energy are all automated. No maintenance or minimum maintenance required, as machines repair machines.
Depending on the stress required by the work the society must maintain the reward required to maintain the minimum health of the individual undergoing the stress. If this is out of balance the society will thrive or collapse.
In any case the work itself puts a strain on every individual. The stress/reward ratio will effect the motive of the individual. Every individual is different physically and mentally and all must eat and expend physical activity to maintain life. Even a selfish person, who is not suicidal, must find a balance in order to survive. Only in a science fiction society could such a selfishly motivated person exist without drama. In any other his activities would set him apart, either as a success or failure depending on the work. The stress/reward ratio would always determine his motives. Why would his motives allow him to do things with a non-fractional stress/reward ratio?
Wow, I just found your channel and I honestly think you're making such interesting content! Keep going!
This is the only video which explains this concept properly. Thank you so much
I disagree that it explains it properly. Would you like to know why?
@@dmurawsky I would
@@deerdoryt the examples given are actually examples of psychological egoism because they illustrate someone’s need for something being fulfilled. The logical fallacy being published on the Internet in this video is that somehow psychological egoism and psychological altruism are mutually exclusive, but in truth, psychological altruism is always in every case I’ve ever seen at least an example of an attempt to cover up, psychological egoism with psychological altruism, but the psychological egoism is always there.
@@deerdoryt TLDR; why not both?
Awesome Ben! Great Video. From my understanding, self-Interest is the core of Psychological Egoism. From watching the video, none of the arguments presented shared a lack of self-interest, more so a lack of selfishness. I'm not arguing if Psychological Egoism is true or not but I believe there is a major difference between self-interest and selfishness which are used interchangeably.
@Thinking Deeply with Ben
Hmmm.
First, about the circular reasoning argument;
Hmm I think its an oversimplification to say, that psychological egoism is about assuming that a person derives pleasure from any made choice.
The point is that a person associates, interprets, evaluates and prioritizes in a situation, and then makes a choice based on what he or she values and prioritizes, in the context.
Not what happens but the personal experience and evaluation, determines the made choice.
This is what I as a psychological egoist, call egoism.
---
Secondly, about evoquation fallacy:
How is it flawed to call two different things by the same name, if no two things are actually the same, yet we do it anyway? This seems like a matter of detail in classification.
No car is exactly like another car, yet we can call both a car. No egoism is exactly like another egoism, yet we can call both egoism.
It’s about a feeling of superiority. It’s evident when you read Plato. For example, the person volunteering in the animal shelter feels superior to others because she doesn’t need money, she’s ABOVE it. She can help the needy unlike those moral degenerates out there scrounging for a bigger paycheck. In reality, it’s a defense mechanism. In a way, she may be a loser, no money, no education, etc. Yet, she will make herself feel ABOVE the others by acting and telling herself she is ABOVE their selfish life choices. This is the reason why Socrates would berate people who wouldn’t live a “Good” life (even though that’s completely subjective) while he was essentially a bum.
Every person I've encountered who argues for psychological egoism has been using it as the reason their "honest" selfishness is superior to your "deluded" compassion.
Watch, many will go out of their way to justify their philosophies of futility to you and denigrate your efforts and concerns, often while you are actively doing something for another. I believe this is because they subconsciously know they are lacking a quality most of the rest of us at least understand and are scrambling desperately to see themselves as whole. Even if it takes making the entire rest of the world out to be selfish pricks, in their (and your) minds. Otherwise, why should they care?
Seen as weakness, I don't think most of the egoists actually have what it takes to swallow their pride and work for the benefit of others, some of whom you will not care for at all, personally. The ungrateful, the filthy, the rude and common and crazy and damaged and difficult. You must be willing to continue learning about yourself to do this.
I just think it "funny" that any inkling of personal joy or satisfaction is all it takes to render acts of altruism or benevolence hollow and somehow even worse than doing nothing, to these types. How, then, are we meant to feel when we have come to the aid of our fellow man?
And, by the way, almost all of the examples of egoists I know regularly complain that "the universe is against" them...to be clear, not against us, but them... go figure.
Ahh in regard to the mother situation, he’s confusing instinct with altruism.. and dying due to grief is even not evidence that it’s egotistical, we should be happy that someone dies and no longer has to deal with this hell on earth, yet our ego will not allow it due to the feeling that person was able to give us.
You got one of the best stations going Ben.. I'mma big fan 🗡️👾🗡️
Love from India
I think there are things that count as sacrifices and other things that count as investents, it depends on how positive you are on the fact that you'l get the reward and that such reward fulfills your need/desire.
I don't think here we are talking about how one sees things as a positive or negative act, I think when we are judging 'acts' generally, it should with a universally judged not with solely 2 types perspectives.
And I'll not deny the fact that during the act of sacrifice, the major consciousness of someone is inclined towards selflessness, but that selflessness gives pleasure of feeling good about yourself and that persone knows that he or she is establishing the fact to others that his/her act is selfless, which makes them a 'great' & a 'good' person in our so called society society.
I personally believe that behind every act of selflessness, there's a small part of selfishness.
good channel. goes straight to the meat.
What if instead of doing things for your own self interest? You did them for a higher power(God). I believe altruism can only be achieved in this way. Along with having the world view that a mysterious spiritual being created the entire world we live in and the motivation of all your actions, thoughts, spoken words, be for the honor and glory of him.
True, that basically what all major religions teach
There is the want to go to heaven and be rewarded for your actions. Still selfish.
@@TheBeanGreen Yes, spot on. All religion teaches that. The KJV Holy Bible teaches differently. Jesus(God) paid the debt of sin we owe. So we can go to heaven not by selfish works. Only through faith by grace, not works. The only things required are humility, calling upon/believing in Jesus's name, and repentance of sin. After this his holy spirit guides us to do his will. We are born again. Which is to love God above all, which is to keep his word and obey it after salvation. The more faith we have in him, the easier it is to overcome sin. With out Gods Holy Spirit we can produce no good fruit. With out him all our fruit is rotten, vain, or selfish. He is the way, the truth, and the life.
good video
You can not prove any of this unless you can read someone’s mind.
Fix your collar soldier
Some people are psychological egoists, not all.
Yeah true, but every act is selfish in a way.