Psychological Egoism

Many thanks to PRO for this most interesting of resolutions. I'm going to clarify what Psychological egoism is and is not, and then make arguments for why the claim it posits does not hold. INTRODUCTION: "Psychological egoism is the thesis that we are always deep down motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest." (1) That is to say, psychological egoists make the empirical claim that "each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare," as advancing our welfare is what makes some action self interested, and all actions that all people take are only to advance that end. (2) Psychological egoism is both a thesis about universal motivation for human behavior as much as it is an account of human action, and the debate about it "concerns the motivations that underlie all of our actions." (1) Psychological egoism is contrasted with psychological altruism, which is the view that "sometimes we can have ultimately altruistic motives." (1) So, both psychological egoism and altruism could be false, though only one may be true. While proving the theory of psychological altruism would disprove psychological egoism, psychological altruism need not be proven to render psychological egoism false. In this debate, as CON I do not have to prove psychological altruism to be true. I need only prevent PRO from showing that psychological egoism is true. And I argue that psychological egoism is not true for several reasons. Psychological egoism cannot be true because at least some human activity is done to ultimately advance the welfare of others, and there is insufficient evidence to warrant the claim that all human behavior is motivated purely out of self interest. 1. At least some human activity is done to ultimately advance the welfare of others. Altruistic behavior is behavior that is disinterested and selfless insofar as it is done solely out of concern for the well-being of others. It is important at this point to note in passing that even if there are conceivable reasons why behavior that appears to be altruistic might advance some spurious self interest does not mean that, in fact, the behavior which appears to be altruistic is in fact not altruistic. Nonetheless, I propose a standard for circumstantially evaluating the veracity of altruistic behavior: to the extent that the doing of some behavior that advances other's welfare subjects the performer of that behavior to risk, it is inferable that that behavior is altruistic. That is because exposure to risk comes both at one's imminent expense and likewise to the benefit of another. So, if someone exposes themselves to mortal risk, in service to others it is at least more probable than not that the particular behavior's motivation was genuinely altruistic. I offer two specific examples of behavior consistent with that standard for altruism: doctors treating ebola patients in Africa and soldiers who jump on grenades to save the lives of their fellow soldiers: Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol are American health workers who treat patients infected with ebola in Africa. (3) Brantley and Writebol have been infected with the ebola virus. Ebola is a virus which kills approximately 90% of those infected with it, is highly contagious through close physical contact, there is no known treatment for ebola infection and health care workers are frequently infected with ebola while treating patients, due to the close contact that is required to treat patients. (4) As health care workers, Brantley and Writebol knew the risks associated with treating ebola patients, and yet they still freely volunteered to treat ebola patients. To describe the degree of risk associated with treating ebola patients as anything less than mortal would be erroneous. Brantley and Writebol were offered no uniquely compelling financial incentives to perform this high risk work in Africa, as both were in Africa to treat ebola patients at the behest of American charity organizations. (3, 5) Likewise, as health care workers, Brantley and Writebol's sole purpose is to treat ebola patients to the extent that they are able despite their doing so despite the mortal the risk of their own welfare. It is inferable, then, that their going to Africa to treat ebola patients was altruistic. "Falling on a grenade" as it is referred to in the military, likewise meets the standard for an altruistic act. "Falling on a grenade" or "jumping" on a grenade involves a single soldier deliberately using his body to shield others within the grenade's explosive range from that explosion. Though it is sometimes survivable, it is much more common that soldiers who fall on grenades do not survive the endeavor. Since this is almost universally fatal, falling on a grenade is considered to be an especially selfless act of individual sacrifice in wartime. (6) At a White House ceremony in June, 2008, then President George W. Bush presented the Medal of Honor award to Romayne and Thomas McGinnis, the parents of the soldier, Pfc. Ross A. McGinnis of the Army. (7) Ross was 19 in Dec. 4, 2006, when a grenade was thrown into the Humvee he was riding in. In the remarks he made during the Medal of Honor award ceremony, President Bush described the choice that Private McGinnis had. Ross could have jumped out of the Humvee and saved himself, but he chose to drop into the hatch and cover the grenade with his own body to absorb the shrapnel. He was killed instantly. (7) As President Bush described, "Four men are alive because this soldier embodied our Army values and gave his life." Pfc. McGinnes knew that jumping on that grenade would almost invariably cost him his life, and in making the choice to fall on that grenade, he valued the lives of those in the Humvee below deck more than his own. Such a choice that is imminently at the expense of another's general welfare cannot be said not to reflect genuine altruism, because in no sense was his self interest or his individual welfare advanced by making the choice to sacrifice his life for others. 2. There is insufficient evidence to warrant the claim that all human behavior is motivated purely out of self interest. Upon an examination of the empirical evidence against psychological egoism, Daniel Bastion's research is "very bad news for psychological egoism." (2) Indeed, Bastion found that "increased empathy leads to increasing helping behavior" such that "empathy causes a non-instrumental desire to help." (2) Bastion compared the psychological egoist's various hypothesis to those of the psychological altruists. While psychological egoists claimed that increased empathy might result in a feeling of unpleasantness that the desire to ameliorate would compel individuals to help others, Bastion found that giving high empathy individuals an easy way out did not reduce their desire to help. (2) Likewise, while psychological egoists claimed that subjects only were motivated to help as a means to escape punishment or social sanction from others which might be incurred by not helping, Bastion's findings rule this an impossibility because even when he told high empathy individuals that their particular work would be kept a secret, their desire to help was not reduced. (2) Bastion showed that "the mood of high empathy subjects depended on whether they believed the help was needed... rather than on whether they helped." He reached this conclusion by telling high-empathy individuals that others had volunteered to do the help needed, meaning that their specific help was not necessary. But, this did not reduce the desire to help, which showed that the self punishment hypothesis is invalid. (2) While Bastion's findings do not necessarily prove psychological altruism, they sharply cast doubt on psychological egoism's being true because they rule out psychological egoist's conventional objections to altruism's being a genuine, ultimate motivator of human behavior as well as indicating the extent to and conditions under which humans act altruistically. Thus, Bastion concludes that "empathy tends to induce in us ultimate desires for the wellbeing of someone other than ourselves." (1) And if this is true, "then psychological egoism is false" because, in Bastion's words, "altruistic concern for the welfare of others is within the human repertoire." (1) SOURCES: (1) http://www.iep.utm.edu... (2) http://plato.stanford.edu... (3) http://www.cbsnews.com... (4) http://www.who.int... (5) http://www.cbsnews.com... (6) http://en.wikipedia.org... (7) http://www.nytimes.com...