Egoism and Moral Skepticism by James Rachels - Research Paper Example

Egoism and Moral Skepticism Introduction James Rachels was an American philosopher who wrote extensively on ethics and morality. He advocated animal rights and was basically a utilitarian. One of his essays called Egoism and moral skepticism is very famous as it argues ethical egoism. Ethical egoism says that a person should do what is beneficial or advantageous to him or her. In his essay James Rachels argue that an ethical egoist cannot be refuted or challenged. This paper will deal with this particular argument of James Rachels regarding ethical egoism. My Personal opinion on this claim of James Rachels will also be presented and arguments will be given to support my personal opinion. Ethical Egoism In his essay James Rachels argue that human beings are very quick to make assumptions about morality and ethics. His argument of ethical egoism that human beings ought to act in their own interest regardless of the effect of their actions on other people springs out from his notion that human beings are not well equipped to assume what is in the best interest of any other person. Since human beings don’t know what is best for other people they cannot act in a way as to benefit them. The only thing a person is capable of knowing is what is his or her interest and he or she ought to act in their own interest. This moral skepticism is the basis of James Rachels idea of ethical egoism. The principle of utilitarianism is underlining the claim of James Rachels about ethical egoism. He thinks that people ought to do things that may seem to be in the interest of others but actually it is in their own self interest to do so. The example of man who wants to burn down a store and refrains from it explains Rachels approach to ethical egoism. The man is refraining not because he cares about the people but because it is in his own self interest that he lives in a society where people care for each other (Rachels, p. 79). Ethical egoism is a normative view regarding how a man ought to act. He should act in his own self interest always. But by acting in his own interest he is not violating or usurping rights of other people or in no way by acting in his self interest he is hurting the society. It is actually not in his interest to hurt anyone or to violate any one’s rights simply because he wants to receive the same treatment. The reason why Rachels believe that ethical egoism cannot be refuted is that he clearly believes that human beings have an inherent tendency to be sympathetic. Although he has not given this as his main argument still he thinks this belief is what that force people to act in their own interest (which cannot be against the interest of others). In the end of his essay he has mentioned this in a sentence but clearly Rachel’s belief in innate sympathy and altruism is working at full potential behind his theory of ethical egoism. Rachels comes to his claim that ethical egoism cannot be refuted by answering to the argument of inconsistency against ethical egoism. This argument calls ethical egoism to be inconsistent on grounds of its incapability to be universal. Proponents of this argument suggest that if everyone chooses to become ethical egoists then each would be working in their own self interest. The idea is inconsistent because if one’s self interest is fulfilling in hurting Paul and Paul’s self interest is fulfilling in hurting Peter and so on then how can ethical egoism be applied universally. The argument of James Rachels against this view is that an ethical egoist is not being inconsistent when he believes that everyone else should be altruistic while he should care about his own self interest. Rachels says that this seemingly inconsistent idea is not self contradictory because it is a means to achieve an end. He is doing so just to achieve his goals; a world where his interest in maximized. This argument, according to Rachels, makes it impossible to refute an ethical egoist. Personal Opinion on Ethical Egoism The arguments presented by James Rachels cannot be easily sidelined or denied. He believes if everyone acts in his or her own self interest they will do so without hurting others simply because we value humanity. An egoist will do ‘good’ not because of some sense of morality but because it is in his self interest to do ‘good’. I personally don’t accept the claim that an ethical egoist cannot be refuted simply because it is naïve to think that everyone is sophisticated enough to understand that his interest lies in the interest of others. Our prisons are full today, crime takes place regularly. Daily events show that all of us are not ‘sympathetic’ by nature. Everyone is not thinking on the same pattern as James Rachels. A person who robs a store cares only about his own interest. He either ignores the repercussions of his actions on him or he is simply not equipped to understand the consequences of his actions. His ideal world is one in which he benefits the most, even at the expense of others. This I think is the reason why ethical egoism cannot be advocated. The reason why Rachel’s argument is justified is because he has ignored the power of human urges. It is sometimes impossible to control one’ self and actions we do in such a state are done without active contemplation. Ethical egoism, advocated worldwide, will do more harm than good because it will justify our ill intentioned actions. A person who wants to burn a store will be urged to do so and is likely to go ahead without thinking its effects on society and humanity. And what I am talking are not exceptions. Educated people, intellectual people have difficulty in controlling their urges. They commit foul play simply because they are strongly motivated to so and when they refrain from such an event they do so because of threat of punishment. Thinking about one’s self will only motivate a person in acting in his or her own interest even at the expense of others. The idea is not pragmatic at all considering the state of the world we live in. We cannot just leave everyone to follow his or her subjective urges rather we need to make laws to be ethical. Conclusion Ethical egoism argues that one ought to act in his or her own interest but the idea does not take into account the fact the human beings are innately selfish. Ethical egoism is not something that can be advocated universally. James Rachels fails to answer precisely the question of Glaucon that why one should be moral. His explanation that it is in one’s long term good to be moral is not pragmatic and not represents the true world. Works Cited Page Rachels, James. “Egoism and Moral Skepticism”. Ethical Theory: A Concise Anthology 2nd Edition. Ed. Geirsson & Holmgren. New York: Broadview Press, 2000. Print Read More