CONSIDER THIS STATEMENT….

“Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all our

actions are always already motivated by self-interest.”
This is the stance taken by psychological egoism, which is a theory that describes
the underlying dynamic behind all human actions.

As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to act in any particular way. Instead, it
points out that there is already an underlying basis for how one acts.

The ego or self has its desires and interests, and all our actions are geared toward
satisfying these interests.
This may not seem particularly problematic when we consider many of the actions
that we do on a day-to-day basis. Such as:
I watch a movie or read a book because I want to, or go for a walk and do some
window shopping in the mall because I enjoy that.
I take a certain course in college because I think it will benefit me, or I join an
organization because I will get some good out of it.
We do things in pursuit of our own self-interest all the time.
But what about other types of behavior that we would commonly say are directed toward
the other? Consider, for example, an act of generosity, in which someone helps a friend with
her thesis rather than play videogames, or someone makes use of her Saturday helping
build houses for Gawad Kalinga?
The psychological egoist would maintain that underlying such apparently other-directed
behavior is a self-serving desire, even if one does not acknowledge it or is even conscious of
it.
Perhaps he only helped his friend with her thesis because he is trying to impress her.
Perhaps, she helps out with Gawad Kalinga because this is how she relieves her sense of
guilt at being well-off compared to others.
The idea is that whether or not the person admits it, one’s actions are ultimately always
motivated by self-serving desire.
This theory has a couple of strong points.
The first is that of simplicity. When an idea is marked by simplicity, it has a unique
appeal to it; a theory that conveniently identifies a single basis that will somehow
account for all actions is a good example of this.
The second is that of plausibility. It is plausible that self-interest is behind a person’s
actions. It is clearly the motivation behind many of the actions one perform which
are obviously self-serving; it could very well also be the motivation behind an
individual’s seemingly other-directed actions.
It is not only plausible, but also irrefutable.
 Psychological egoism is an irrefutable theory because there is no way to try to
answer it without being confronted by the challenge that, whatever one might
say, there is the self-serving motive at the root of everything. The psychological
egoist can and will insist on his stand no matter how one might try to object.
 This opens up two questions:
1. “Because we cannot refute it, shall we accept it as true?”
2. “Do we accept the consequences of this theory?”
The first question asks whether we have to accept the theory because it happens to
be irrefutable. One could maintain, if he really wanted to, that human nature is
intrinsically self interested and that human beings could not possibly be
benevolent.
The second point has to do with the problematic consequences of this theory.
Consider this scenario: One woman spends her money on expensive clothes, and
another woman donates to charity. In terms of psychological egoism, they are both
simply and equally doing what is self-serving for themselves. Because they both are
simply fulfilling what would serve them, they are of equal moral worth.
In judging these persons and these actions, we can ask ourselves:
Do we want to give up on our moral intuition concerning the goodness and value of
generosity versus the wrongness of selfishness just for the sake of this theory?
More significantly, turning to the next consequence when we move from moral
judgment to moral decision, the question is: How then are we supposed to decide?
Given psychological egoism, it does not matter. We only think that we have a choice
but actually whatever way that we end up acting, our minds have already
determined what serves our interest best.
So psychological egoism, when we look at its consequences, leads us to a cynical
view of humanity, to a gloomy description of human nature, and finally to a useless
theory for someone who is concerned with asking herself what is the right thing to
do. This is because it ends up nullifying the possibility of any normative ethics in its
view of the already-determined human being.