This case sums as follows: He then concedes that such a principle leads to the inevitable and perhaps veritable situation where all forms of altruism or benevolence are self-deceptive. Beyond the obvious fact that we may not consciously know our motives for action at all times, it is plain to see that we are still acting self- interestedly. He notes that this argument needs to make goodness and evil into metaphysical opposites like redness and nonredness. Her desire to win makes her anxious during her matches, and thus she does not play well and loses. Feinberg finds the premise, beginning with the individual, to be incapable of flowing logically towards a descriptor of all human actions.
Egoists might allow that pleasure or happiness [for oneself] may well not be the only motivating factors. Wallsten 1 determining why we act the way we do. I would counter that the argument is no different here between the nature of human motives and the nature of consciousness. To be more direct with my counter- argument, if, for example, we claim that I am conscious because I am aware of my own consciousness,7 and I am human and alive, then other humans, by virtue of being human and alive, are therefore conscious. Synthetic statements —their truth or falsity is derived not from meaning but, rather, from facts. However, that is not to say that he outright agrees with the premise. But, we can do this, and thus a counter-argument is born.
It is his claim that it is not true that the objective of every action is to get pleasure, but more importantly it is not guaranteed that fulfillment of desire brings about satisfaction.
This paper first deals with his evidences against the assumption of absolute personal identity and second indicates that his notion of non-substantialist self, which requires a neoclassic metaphysics, has no trouble overcoming the logical obstacle against the idea of loving other as one’s self. Cited here form reprint in Reason and Responsibility seventh editioned. Butler and Psychological Hedonism. In his mind, I would be inclined to think, this destroys any possible counter-argument concerning the validity of psychological egoism.
Fourth, psychological egoism states that moral education must be teachable. Feinberg has no serious way to criticize the third principle of psychological egoism given that no logical mistakes were made. But let me put the following thought out there. Hartshorne argues, however, that the latter is also constructed on the assumption that there is an absolute personal identity for human self. Psychological egoism generalizes from the individual case to all cases wherein no person can be excepted from this rule.
Sorry, if you mean that it’s hard to follow my arguments. Nonetheless, they might contend that our other ultimate motives self-fulfillment, power, etc.
Supplement on Feinberg’s “Psychological Egoism”
Can you help me clarify? A Principal Ethic on the Principle of Nonmaleficence. Summarily, psychological egoism does not require that humans inherently know what action s will maximize or guarantee the pleasure we undoubtedly seek, egpism that we well act in a way that we believe maximizes it.
Is Management Theory Too ” Self-ish “. Egoiem only way for her to win is to relax and enjoy the game, win or lose. Specifically, he argues that if we get what we want and that leads to pleasure, then that leads to the notion that all we really ever want is pleasure, and we are incapable of any other motives.
Summarily, psychological egoism does not require that humans inherently know what action s will maximize or guarantee the pleasure we undoubtedly seek, only that we well act in a way that we believe maximizes it.
Critique of Psychological Egoism: It is certainly the case that logic and the conclusions produced by logical induction are psycholigical important in evaluating the various claims of any proposed theory, but I do not agree that simply because a good, sound, and strong logical argument has not been brought forward it is necessarily doomed to failure, and is impossible.
For how could we end up unhappy if we were pursuing our desires? Wadsworth,pp. But, he cites a general example of where he sees a logical contradiction, namely in the case of instant gratification.
I explain that the theory is rooted in the ability of humans to be introspective about their motives, and then to extrapolate to other human beings. Louis Pojman and James Fieser. Nonetheless, they might contend that our other ultimate motives self-fulfillment, power, etc.
Feinberg contends that the logical statements can never entail contingent ones though he may unhelpfully mix up distinctions of logic and of meaning here. Posted by Jesse Steinberg at Analytic statements —true by definition here empirical information is irrelevant and superfluous. Skip to main content. History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues.
Cited here form reprint in Reason and Responsibility seventh editioned. Then when that desire was satisfied, Lincoln of course derived pleasure. Unclear Logical Status of the Theory: