Specifically, he argues that if we get what we want and that leads to pleasure, then that leads to the notion that all we really ever want is pleasure, and we are incapable of any other motives. Extending introspection to a universal level is necessary if we are to ever begin to understand human beings at any substantial level. Wallsten 1 determining why we act the way we do. He then concedes that such a principle leads to the inevitable and perhaps veritable situation where all forms of altruism or benevolence are self-deceptive. But is the phenomenon of instant gratification truly proof of the failing of the second principle of psychological egoism or is it merely a red herring attempting to distract us from any sort of real debate?
Wallsten 9 morally appropriate way and punishing them when they have not, could lead to situations wherein if the probability were negligible or very remote that one might be caught one might be tempted to commit actions that are objectively, morally detestable. Further, they claim the solution to avoiding suffering is enlightenment. Desiring happiness per se would make no sense if this is what is meant by it. Here, again, we can think of a mathematical proof wherein all premises must be true in order for the entirety of the proof to be true, yet this is 6 Discussion of counter points to this will be more thoroughly evaluated in the analysis of the second counter- argument presented by Feinberg. Another analogy is that of friendship. Well, this is rather puzzling.
Then when that desire was satisfied, Lincoln egiosm course derived pleasure. He notes that this argument needs to make goodness and evil into metaphysical opposites like redness and nonredness. To be more direct with my counter- eglism, if, for example, we claim that I am conscious because I am aware of my own consciousness,7 and I am human and alive, then other humans, by virtue of being human and alive, are therefore conscious.
We are talking about the nature of human motives, and given that I as a human being perceive my need to seek out pleasure for the sake of pleasure is verifiable6, by means of careful introspection, is it not intuitively acceptable to broadly psycbological that perhaps all humans deal in a similar process of mental happenings?
Oxford University Press, Wadsworth,pp. I apologize, I was a little tired when I wrote up the post. This, of course is perverse—a psychological theory stands or falls on the basis of the empirical evidence that is mustered for it! In direct conjunction with psychological egoism — what we might want to declare, should we so desire it, is the analogue to this scientific theory — is ethical egoism which is focused on how we should act in order to gain pleasure.
A long citation here characterizes such a life: Sorry, if you mean that it’s hard to follow my arguments.
The psychological egoist observes that humans learn the proper methods of interaction amongst other humans and psychologicaal action outside of group scrutiny by a means of moral educating. Wallsten 5 not a technically challenging principle of psychological egoism.
Supplement on Feinberg’s “Psychological Egoism”
My original drive might be based in something I cannot directly perceive, but all means eating lead me to the happiness of filling my stomach. This case sums as follows: Log In Sign Up.
Critique of Psychological Egoism: Cited here form reprint in Reason and Responsibility seventh editioned. The second argument for psychological egoism [getting what one wants and receiving pleasure] is also flawed: Newer Post Older Post Home. So Ehoism missing something or I’m misunderstanding the force of the conclusion.
History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. Wallsten 9 morally appropriate way and punishing them when they have not, could lead to situations wherein if the probability were negligible or very remote that one might be caught one might be tempted to commit actions that are objectively, morally detestable.
Feinberg clarifies psychological egoism and maintains that there are several things wrong with this theory. It is merely stating that if the logic is unsound at this point, given our own intuitions and knowledge of ourselves and given we are absolutely truthful with ourselves, no matter how embarrassing or disillusioning such revelations may beit is only so because a good logical procedure for extrapolating from individuals to general populations has not been defined.
Is your point that there a variety of ‘happinesses’ which are entwined feinberb an experience such that they can’t come apart, e.
The psychological egoist observes that humans learn the proper methods of interaction amongst other humans and private action outside of group scrutiny by a means of moral educating. Another feinbsrg is that of friendship. Egoists might allow that pleasure or happiness [for oneself] may well not be the only motivating factors.
On that basis, I support psychological egoism and all of its conclusions. But, we can do this, and thus a counter-argument is born. Here, again, we can think of a mathematical proof wherein all premises must be true in order for the entirety of the proof to be true, yet this is 6 Discussion of counter points to this will be more thoroughly evaluated in the analysis of the second counter- argument presented by Feinberg.
Newer Post Older Post Home.
It is certainly the case that logic and the conclusions produced by logical induction are very important in evaluating the various claims of any proposed theory, but I do not agree that simply because a good, sound, and strong logical argument has not been brought forward it is necessarily doomed to psychologiccal, and is impossible. Thursday, March 7, Joel Feinberg: