Altruism represents a show of pure compassion, generosity, kindness, philanthropy and volunteering for other people. The topic of altruism has been in life for a long time with philosophers arguing for and against this concept. The question is always whether it is possible to find a true and pure altruist on earth among the human beings. People have even engaged in actions aimed at portraying themselves as altruists. However, it is quite important for people to understand the distinction that exists between altruism as an ego defense and the true as well as pure altruism. True altruism is a means to an external initiative aimed at purely benefiting other people, such as alleviating hunger and poverty (Batson, 2011). Psychological egoism has overtaken the entire humankind and killed true altruistic spirits in human beings. Therefore, the considered argument to be presented in this paper is that it is not possible for a human being to be a true and pure altruist. This paper supports psychological egoism and opposes Joel Feinberg’s main arguments against this concept. Psychological egoism refers to the tendency of being self-interested in every sphere of life.
Joel Feinberg’s main arguments against psychological egoism
The first criticism presented by Feinberg against the concept of psychological egoism is that it generalized for all human beings, yet there are those that are always selfless. Feinberg, therefore, questions the validity of psychological egoism. In essence, Feinberg objects the logic of defining all human beings based on what is seen in one person. To him, a single person cannot be used to determine the nature of human motives as psychological egoism suggests.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Feinberg also attacks the principle of psychological egoism that suggests all actions by human beings are only meant to achieve pleasures. Feinberg refers to the rare and special cases of disinterested benevolence as well as malevolence demonstrated by human beings, which he then claims are proof that psychological egoism is fallacious. According to Feinberg, in his criticism of psychological egoism, claims that people act in some instances without even any goal and objective to be achieved in sight in such a manner that their interests are disregarded for the sake of the happiness and welfare of other individuals.
On the third principle of psychological egoism, which is self-deception, Feinberg criticizes it arguing that there is the lack of evidence to support universal self-deception. Feinberg mentions that no other person other than the agent himself or herself can be sure of the conscious motives that made them do a particular action. Moreover, Feinberg even says, “…where motives are disreputable, even the agent may not admit to himself the true nature of his desires” (588).
He also criticizes the moral education requirement, using it as a basis to cast doubt on the whole theory of psychological egoism. Feinberg makes an inference that teaching people that which is right and wrong through rewarding them when they act in a morally correct manner and punishing them when they behave in a morally wrong way may bring up circumstances where an individual is tempted to engage in a conduct that is objectively and morally unacceptable.
Joel Feinberg’s criticism against psychological egoism is wrong
I do not support the arguments presented by Feinberg in his criticism against the theory of psychological egoism. Firstly, the nature of his first criticism is not generally convincing. Feinberg’s first criticism against psychological egoism is surely the case that suggests logic and the conclusions that are arrived at through logical induction are vital in assessing the different assertions proposed by a theory (Cahn & Markie, 2012). This argument may be sensible to some extent, but I am not in agreement with the suggestion just because a good, sound and strongly logical argument is missing, a proposition should necessarily be rejected. In the first criticism of the theory of psychological egoism, Feinberg argues that one person cannot be used to make inferences about the nature of human motives for all human beings. However, there is no way the general nature of human motives can be known without making deductions from the behavior of individuals. It is an accepted principle of science that a sample can be tested, and the results applied in making conclusions about the entire population from which it is taken. Feinberg seems to be opposing this generally accepted principle of science. What Feinberg should understand is that it is quite impractical to conduct a study of all human beings on earth in order to come up with the right inferences about the nature of their motives as he wants.
In the criticism to the second principle of psychological egoism, Feinberg says if a person gets what they want and that brings about pleasure, then the idea created in that situation is that all the person wanted was only pleasure hence is not able to have any other motive (Cahn & Markie, 2012). It is important to understand that people act in a manner that guarantees their way to an end, which is just pleasure. Human beings only engage in actions that can give them pleasure. Feinberg argues that the outcome of every action taken by human beings is not always pleasure as claimed by the theory of psychological egoism. However, it has to be known that even if the result of the action is displeasure, the original motive behind acting is always the search for pleasure.
Moreover, Feinberg presents an argument that presupposes that people are perfectly rational creatures, who are capable of always selecting the best course of actions in the quest of fulfilling their desires. However, such an argument can only be true in a perfect world, where all human beings do not make erroneous decisions about their life. This argument is, therefore, invalid because it is known human beings are naturally bound to commit errors in life in terms of decision-making. Human beings can choose a particular action thinking its end result will be pleasurable, but only to be heart-broken with its unpleasant outcome. The basic motive for any action is always the search for pleasure.
Feinberg finds no serious way to criticize the third principle of psychological egoism since there were no logical errors committed on this one. He only criticizes this third principle on the basis that it lacks evidence to support universal self-deception (Cahn & Markie, 2012). Although it is practical that sometimes people may not consciously be aware of their motives for particular actions, it is clearly discernible that people still act to quench their interests. Therefore, evidence need not be adduced for one to understand such a clear issue.
Conclusion
The considered argument presented in this paper is that it is not possible for a human being to be a true and pure altruist. This paper supports psychological egoism and opposes Joel Feinberg’s main arguments against this concept. Feinberg appears to be in support of altruism, but the kind of altruists present among human beings is for the defense of egos and not true. People engage in acts that appear altruistic as Batson (2011) says, but such deeds are aimed at deriving self-pleasure. The primary motive is always the objective to derive pleasure.
References
Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in Humans . New York: Oxford University Press.
Cahn, S.M. and Markie, P. (2012). Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues . 5th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.584-591.
