The cumulative results evidently show that the empathy-helping relationship is not put in place by egoistic ultimate desires to either: relieve personal distress e.
References and Further Reading Batson, C. Examines a wide range of empirical data from social psychology for the empathy-altruism hypothesis.
Batson, C. Altruism in Humans. New York: Oxford University Press. An updated book-length defense of the existence of altruism in humans. Attempts to rebut challenges to the empathy-altruism hypothesis based on experiments done since the early s. Shaw An overview of the experimental evidence for altruism. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Reprinted in part in Raphael , Vol. II, pp. One of his basic assumptions about human psychology is psychological hedonism.
Blackburn, Simon Ruling Passions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. A broadly Humean account of motivation and ethics that covers, among others things, some issues at the intersection of egoism and biology see ch. Broad, C.
Five Types of Ethical Theory. Reprinted in , London: Routledge. He develops what takes to be the most plausible version of psychological egoism, but concludes that it is rather implausible. Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel. I, pp. He mounts a famous argument against psychological hedonism in particular. Cialdini, Robert B. Brown, B. Lewis, C. Neuberg The Selfish Gene. Originally published in Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Originally published in by Dickenson Pub.
A comprehensive discussion of philosophical arguments for and against psychological egoism. Rejects psychological egoism based primarily on traditional philosophical arguments. Henson, Richard G. Reprinted in part in Raphael Vol. The classic treatise on moral and political philosophy grounded in what is often considered a grim view of human nature. A classic interpretation is that Hobbes holds a form of psychological egoism. Beauchamp ed. A discussion of psychological egoism that is absent from the Treatise.
First printed in Argues against psychological egoism in a variety of ways, most notably by attempting to reveal how implausible it is on its face once its commitments are made clear. May, Joshua A critique of arguments for psychological egoism that appeal to the idea that we blur the distinction between ourselves and others, especially when we feel empathy for them.
Mele, Alfred Motivation and Agency. Discusses a wide range of philosophical topics related to motivation. Mercer, Mark. A recent defense of a form of psychological egoism that appeals to introspection and the purported unintelligibility of altruistic explanations of actions.
Morillo, Carolyn The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton University Press. Originally published in , Oxford: Clarendon Press. A famous discussion of altruism and related topics. Nisbett, R. Wilson Doubt is cast on the extent to which we have direct introspective access to higher-order cognitive processes.
Oldenquist, Andrew Argues that the natural state of humans is altruistic rather than egoistic. Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy , 4 th ed. First published in A popular contemporary introduction to moral philosophy. Like most philosophers, declares psychological egoism bankrupt based on the standard sorts of philosophical objections to it. Raphael, D. British Moralists: , 2 Vols.
Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett. A two-volume collection of the moral and political writings of British philosophers from around the 17 th Century, including Hobbes, Butler, Hume, and Bentham. Rosas, Alejandro Rosas argues that they should treat both similarly given the folk psychological framework they both employ.
The Methods of Ethics , 7 th ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publish Company. Reprinted in from the printing by Macmillan and Co. First edition published in A classic, comprehensive ethical theory, which focuses on developing a kind of utilitarianism. A significant portion of it is devoted to various kinds of egoism.
But he pretty clearly rejects psychological egoism, which is arguably contrary to several of his utilitarian predecessors. Schroeder, Timothy Three Faces of Desire. It is sometimes claimed that psychological egoism, if true, lends support to ethical egoism. Specifically, it is supposed that the truth of ethical egoism follows from two premises: one asserting the truth of psychological egoism, and the other stating the principle that 'ought' implies 'can'.
One can see that the argument has some intuitive appeal. They believe that it is important to look out only for number one. These are examples of psychological and ethical egoism. While both concepts talk about the importance of fulfilling self-interests, they have fundamental differences.
Psychological Egoism is the belief that people always act to satisfy self-interest, even if the action appears to be selfless. It states people would voluntarily help others with the expectation of ultimately receiving a benefit from the act, whether directly or indirectly.
Psychological egoism is based on observations and nothing more. It does not state that acting out of self-interest is moral or otherwise.
It is merely a descriptive theory. This way, psychological egoists hold that what they know about human behavior is all based on observable and empirical facts.
It has to be made clear that self-interest and selfishness are not the same. Hence, to a consequential moralist, an action can only be said to be morally right when its consequences are good. Otherwise, it will be immoral. Of course, utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it also focuses on the results of an action before determining its morality. In fact, just like consequentialists, utilitarians believe that an action is considered being moral if it benefits the highest number of people involved.
In both, satisfaction is accomplished in case people are contented with an action Solomon, R. Consequentialism is different from pragmatism which is more scientific and focuses on the ability of an action to solve a real life problem.
Similarly, it differs from deontological theory which asserts the morality of an action is determined by the set rules. The duty of an act is pegged on the regulations that determine how it is being performed in order to achieve morality. I rally behind consequentialism theory because it can be beneficial if an action is performed after considering its consequences.
I think it is immoral to do something just to conform to some regulations. This can be quite detrimental especially if the motive of the person is immoral. In such a situation, an action will be performed to meet the selfish demands of a few individuals. However, it is good to be selflessly democratic to do something whose results are beneficial to all the people in the society.
0コメント