Psychological egoism is the theory that suggests that despite appearances to the contrary, people are always driven by self-interest. On the other hand, ethical egoism holds that acting in one’s best interests is always morally right. Tara Smith argues that psychological egoism is the only ethical theory that can be considered valid because it is the only theory that makes sense in light of our empirical observations (Smith, 1998). She makes the point that, despite the appearance of our actions being selfless, they are driven by self-interest. For example, to appear respectable, a person might give money to a homeless person, or a person might give their time to a charitable cause in order to win the approval of others. According to Smith’s argument, people participate in moral activities to win others’ respect. Overall, Smith makes compelling cases for ethical egoism. She demonstrates the theory’s compatibility with our empirical findings and that it is the only moral theory to be motivated by self-interest.
Butler contends that other moral theories can also be supported by empirical data and ethical egoism, such as utilitarianism. He emphasizes that while acting selfishly, one can occasionally be morally right, but it is not always the most effective way to accomplish a task (Phillips, 2000). For instance, donating money to a good cause may be preferable to spending it on unnecessary items. The contention that self-interest is not always morally right underpins Butler’s arguments against ethical egoism. He adds that it is sometimes essential to act according to moral principles, even if it is self-interested. For instance, despite having self-interest, a person might give money to a homeless person because it is generally morally acceptable to do so, or it serves their interests; someone might give their time to a charitable cause because they feel it is the right thing to do.
In conclusion, Butler’s arguments for ethical egoism are unconvincing. They do not demonstrate that the theory is incompatible with our empirical observations or that it is the only self-interest-driven moral theory. On the other hand, Smith makes compelling cases for ethical egoism. Tara Smith and the Butlers present a variety of justifications for their respective positions on ethical egoism. According to Smith, each person should act in their own best interests. She thinks that this is the best strategy for guaranteeing that everyone on the planet is content.
Conversely, Butler contends that this is the best way to ensure that everyone in the world is happy and that it is essential to help others even if doing so does not benefit oneself. In general, Tara Smith favors ethical egoism, whereas Butler thinks it is crucial to assist others even when doing so is not in their best interests. This significant difference in viewpoint has implications for how people should live. The subject of ethics is significant, and it is critical to fully understand how to live one’s life to the fullest. This disagreement over ideas will probably significantly affect how people live their lives.
References
Phillips, D. (2000). Butler and the nature of self-interest. Philosophical and Phenomenological Research, 421–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/2653493
Smith, T. (1998). Rights, wrongs, and Aristotelian egoism: Illuminating the rights/care dichotomy. Journal of social philosophy, 29(2), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.1998.tb00104.x
write