Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Re: Psychological Egoism
Let me address Steve's argument on several points.
How can a person admit it’s bad for them, and still choose to do it in their own self interest?
How are you defining self-interest here? Certainly if a person admits it's bad for them, then they know that it's unhealthy, but why not self-interested? The act of consuming junk food evidently gives them pleasure (as per their argument), and perhaps he or she prefers to feel pleasured, happy, etc. in the short term even though they know that their health will suffer.
The argument that people act in ways they believe to be in their self interest has more credibility...
This is a logical conclusion from your premises, but are you then promoting objective self-interest? It seems that self-interest should be concerned with the "self" and thus to assume objectivity is tempting, but unfair. Objectively one might know that the person is engaged in destructive behavior, and, as you say, the person might even admit that their actions are "bad" for them, they might still consider it in their best self-interest at the moment to continue in this behavior. Momentary pleasure for long-term losses, so to speak.
In one of the comments, another poster made the point that people who are addicted to various substances continue destructive behavior because they "can't help themselves," and rightfully notes that addiction is a complex topic which seems to support your claim that people do things against their self-interest, even when they don't want to ... but the case, without taking up any more space, is simply to difficult to peg down. Is it in the addict's immediate self-interest to satisfy his addiction? Are you acting in your self-interest when you do something wrong out of fear, because doing that thing is better than facing the fear itself? Or, as the submitter asked, is it in your self-interest to obey the law, or your parents, over your morality (or to satisy theirs)? Food for further consideration.
How can a person admit it’s bad for them, and still choose to do it in their own self interest?
How are you defining self-interest here? Certainly if a person admits it's bad for them, then they know that it's unhealthy, but why not self-interested? The act of consuming junk food evidently gives them pleasure (as per their argument), and perhaps he or she prefers to feel pleasured, happy, etc. in the short term even though they know that their health will suffer.
The argument that people act in ways they believe to be in their self interest has more credibility...
This is a logical conclusion from your premises, but are you then promoting objective self-interest? It seems that self-interest should be concerned with the "self" and thus to assume objectivity is tempting, but unfair. Objectively one might know that the person is engaged in destructive behavior, and, as you say, the person might even admit that their actions are "bad" for them, they might still consider it in their best self-interest at the moment to continue in this behavior. Momentary pleasure for long-term losses, so to speak.
In one of the comments, another poster made the point that people who are addicted to various substances continue destructive behavior because they "can't help themselves," and rightfully notes that addiction is a complex topic which seems to support your claim that people do things against their self-interest, even when they don't want to ... but the case, without taking up any more space, is simply to difficult to peg down. Is it in the addict's immediate self-interest to satisfy his addiction? Are you acting in your self-interest when you do something wrong out of fear, because doing that thing is better than facing the fear itself? Or, as the submitter asked, is it in your self-interest to obey the law, or your parents, over your morality (or to satisy theirs)? Food for further consideration.
# posted by C.c. @ 9:44 PM 
