Ethics

This paper tackles the differences between psychological and ethical egoism in terms of their concepts and principles as well as their doctrines of motivation. The paper is also concluded with a discussion on self-interest and selfishness.

Introduction
Psychological and ethical egoism are two major ethical theories championed by philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. The two theories are a testament not only to the interweaving of moral principles of altruism, self-interest and selfishness and partly a result of confusion associated with the semantics of these concepts. Most of all, a knowledge of the differences between psychological and ethical egoism is essential in contemplating ones moral system.

Basic Concepts behind Psychological and Ethical Egoism
Psychological Egoism. Psychological egoism is known as the empirical doctrine that the determining motive or every voluntary action is a desire for ones own welfare (Psychological, 2009). LaFave (2004) adds that psychological egoism always predicates self-interest, self-love and the pleasure principle. In short, it is the belief or theory that every action done by anyone is for his own sake, or simply, selfish. If the theory is true then we can say that everything someone like Mother Teresa had done to help the poor was indeed out of her own selfish motives.

Psychological egoism is an amoral doctrine in that it is basically not an imperative that makes no particular claim as to how one should act. The theory simply states that all human acts have selfish intentions and it does not necessarily command any particular individual to do the same.

Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory resulting from human behavior (Psychological, 2009). However the fact remains that it has to have no exceptions before it can be regarded as a true empirical theory. The basis for this requirement is that in science, a purported law only needs one disconfirming instance to disprove it (Psychological, 2009).

Doctrine of Motivation for Psychological Egoism. Shannon (2008) states that the motivating doctrine behind psychological egoism is where all of our intuitions are selfish and where therefore there is no reason at all to be altruistic. The doctrine of motivation makes ones adherence to the theory seem more like a sense of duty. This means to say that, since everyone else is selfish and acts selfishly, then one is expected to act in the same way, although a moral duty is not presupposed. The doctrine of motivation for psychological egoism also implies that altruistic acts are not rewarded, or if ever they are, then only through selfish means. Why help when the one you desire to help might not even think of helping you when you would be in trouble

Fallacy of Psychological Egoism. The empirical theory of psychological egoism is, however, believed to commit the fallacy of hasty generalization of converse accident (Psychological, 2009). The fallacy of converse accident is committed when there is an exception to a generalization formed through inductive reasoning. For example, if all I have seen in the last 30 years of my life were parents taking care of their children, then through induction, I can say that all parents take care of their children without knowing that somewhere in the world there are parents who abandon their kids, hence the fallacy.

Once more, the theory of psychological egoism states that people always and invariable act to foster their own self-interest (LaFave, 2004). However, one defect of this theory is the empirical observation that many people do their duty when their self-interest lies somewhere else (Psychological, 2009). For example, many people like the soldier in battle would risk their lives for the benefit of the many even under a vague concept such as nationalism. One may have also seen a man who runs to the aid of a stranger who was hit by a passing vehicle. These and many other instances of visible altruism that are seemingly done out of pure human instinct make the theory of psychological egoism false in a simple, nave sense.

Another problem of the theory is that, in reality, although it may be true that one gets a personal, even selfish, satisfaction out of doing unselfish acts, it does not necessarily follow that one performs unselfish acts solely for the sake of that satisfaction (LaFave, 2004). For example, you know that you will experience this smug feeling of satisfaction if you save someones life. However, it does not necessarily mean that the very reason you are running to save that little girl about to be hit by a car is that you want to be happy and satisfied. Satisfaction here usually comes as a result and not a reason. LaFave (2004) calls this the post hoc fallacy.

Other problems concerning the validity of the theory of psychological egoism include the observable fact that many human acts such as smoking are more injurious rather than beneficial to the self and the instances when duty and self-interest are not always mutually exclusive such as the example of an employee who works hard and efficiently but whose mind and heart is in his family waiting for him at home. Still one more problem would be people who do things just for the sake of doing them, as well as those who force themselves to do something according to the dictates of their conscience and against their will.

All of the aforementioned claims help prove the fallacy behind psychological egoism.
Ethical Egoism. Ethical egoism is the normative or prescriptive doctrine that each individual should seek as an end only that individuals own welfare (Psychological, 2009). Ethical egoism, unlike the amoral theory of psychological egoism, is a moral imperative that claims that everyone shouldseek their self-interest (Psychological, 2009) without making claims that all persons are only after their self-interest. The challenge, however, is that the theory of ethical egoism must first be universalized to hold for all persons (LaFave, 2004) before it is to be regarded as a theory.

Baier (1991), however, defined ethical egoism as the doctrine that if a moral requirement or recommendation is to be sound or acceptable, complying with it must be in accordance with reason. This simply means that
The Strong and Weak Versions of Ethical Egoism. Baier (1991) presents two types of ethical egoism the strong and the weak versions.

Strong ethical egoism, which somehow alludes to Kants description of perfect duty, states that it is always right to aim at ones own greatest good, and never right not to do so (Baier, 1991). The strong ethical egoism is, in short, a rather strict version and assumes that one should always promote oneself for if he didnt, it would be morally wrong. If, for example, you were in a situation in which you knew a stranger would shoot you with a gun, then you had to shoot him first, i.e. act according to your own greatest good. Otherwise, the most probable consequence would be your own death, which presupposes the necessity of your move.

On the other hand, weak ethical egoism, which somehow corresponds to Kants ideal of imperfect duty, states that it is always right to aim at ones own greatest good, but not necessarily never right not to do so (Baier, 1991). If, for example, you see a stranger about to be hit by a car, you may decide to run to his rescue. Nevertheless, deep inside you know that if ever you decided not to, you would not get any blame any way, especially if there were many people in the vicinity, each of whom you think could actually share an equal responsibility for rescuing the stranger.

Doctrine of Motivation for Ethical Egoism. Lundy (2009) states that the doctrine of motivation for ethical egoism lies in self-interest, or in looking out for yourself, She also adds that when motivated this way, every action, even helping others, takes you further along the road to achieving your best interests. This simply means that whatever happens, one should act towards ones self-interest or eventual survival. This translates as doing altruistic acts in order to make things better for you yourself. If, for example, a robber holds you at gunpoint and asks you to give him your money, then you ought to give it to him, i.e. you perform this seemingly altruistic act, just to survive, which is eventually for your self-interest.

Furthermore, the doctrine of motivation for ethical egoism implies that altruistic sacrifices may have to be made in order to act according to ones self-interest. Although this may not be morally pure, such a doctrine is indeed very practical to society in general. Such a doctrine is a great contrast with that of psychological egoism.

Conclusion
The major differences in the concepts and doctrines of motivation behind psychological and ethical egoism lie mainly in the ideas of selfishness and self-interest. Psychological egoism is based on the idea of selfishness while ethical egoism on self-interest, and it is in here where all the confusion lies. First of all, actions directed toward self-interest are not necessarily selfish acts. For example, it is in ones self-interest to follow traffic rules but doing such is simply not selfish act. Secondly, actions directed towards self-interest and selfish acts do not subscribe to an either-or principle, which means that some actions like eating or smoking may be classified as neither selfish or in ones self-interest. Lastly, acting according to ones self-interest may not necessarily mean that one is acting against the interest of others. This means that doing something seemingly selfish and inhuman on the part of the justice system such as the execution of prisoners might actually be directed towards the greater good. All these aforementioned differences blur the distinctions between psychological and ethical egoism and once more tells us that it is in the confusion between these two words that lie the answers to our most pressing moral questions.