Running head: PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM & ETHICAL EGOISM 1

Psychological Egoism & Ethical Egoism

Name

Institutional Affiliation

Date
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM & ETHICAL EGOISM 2

Psychological Egoism & Ethical Egoism

Egoism is presented in two forms, both of which center around a concept of acting in

an individual’s self-interest. Psychological egoism, which advances an entirely descriptive

claim, maintains that individuals often behave in ways of their personal interests. On the

contrary to this is ethical egoism which maintains that individuals should be acting in ways of

their personal interest (Timmons, 2012). This claim is normative since it tells us of the way

we ought to be acting.

Psychological Egoism

Most people consider Psychological egoism a plausible and appealing doctrine.

However altruistic and noble an individual may appear, they are simply as self-centered as

everybody else. That's because everybody needs their personal happiness. Basing my

argument on Shoemakers assumption, there is a major difference between psychological and

ethical egoism, and that is the former says that all individuals behave in selfish ways while

the latter denies this fact by asserting that everyone should be selfish, but only a few people

are. Ethical egoism is more elitist and is therefore perhaps more appealing to an individual

with more competitive sensibility. This, therefore, is not a particularly strong reason to

discount psychological egoism since it does also elitist subsequently that everybody else is

selfish, but only a few of them realize the truth involved in psychological egoism.

Psychological egoism is a thesis that involves our psychological makeup, and

therefore it is, in fact, an empirical thesis. Accordingly, all evidence that is against this thesis,

as well as the ones that support it, needs to be empirical in nature. When considering

individual experience, the evidence should be from observing motivations for the actions we

undertake and questioning our actions. However, in case we consider a circumstance that
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM & ETHICAL EGOISM 3

does not motivate seeking self-advantage, then psychological egoism is most likely the

correct moral theory.

Ethical Egoism

Ethical Egoism is the idea that individuals ought to pursue their self-interest

exclusively. As often considered a normative theory which involves what people ought to do.

Despite the current behaviors, ethical egoism needs everyone to have no moral duty except

for what is best for us. One major problem with ethical egoism is that the practicality of an

ethical alternative does not necessary follow from a person's self-interest, in that to some

extent it is subjective.

Unlike Psychological egoism, ethical egoism is not rebutted through pinpointing on

counter examples of individuals who act selflessly. It does not necessarily involve the way

individuals behave but instead the way they should be behaving. Even if no one is ever

entirely selfish, there is still a chance they could be. A complaint that is somehow brought

against ethical egoism is that it does not entirely involve ethical theory. In one way or the

other, it is a symbol for other ethical theories: it ensures prescriptions of what ought to be

done; and issues the same prescription for individuals in relatively similar circumstances.

In support of Shoemakers argument, ethical egoism, like any other ethical doctrine,

serves the purpose of providing guidance for conduct in life. However, Utilitarianism makes

unjust demands on individuals, in accordance with one line of argument. According to ethical

egoism, there are no duties assigned to us by ourselves. This does not imply that the entire

world ought to satisfy my happiness. Everyone, according to egoism has a goal for him or

herself,--in utilitarianism, everyone shares the same goal. This goal difference can endanger

conflict. However, this does not object ethical egoism. When individuals have conflicting

goals, they ought to maintain personal goals.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM & ETHICAL EGOISM 4

References

Timmons, M. (2012). Conduct and character: readings in moral theory.