Why Should We Care About Psychological Egoism?

Psychological Egoism is the theory that all human actions are aimed at avoiding some personal loss or gaining some personal benefit.  I've found it surprising that so many philosophy textbooks for ethics courses have a chapter or two devoted to this theory, since it's merely a descriptive/psychological theory and not an ethical theory.  Even if it were true, why should ethicists really care?  Russ Shafer-Landau presents an interesting argument for why we should:

(1) If psychological egoism is true, then we can't be altruistic.
(2) If we can't be altruistic, then it can't be our duty to be altruistic.
(3) Therefore, if psychological egoism is true, then it can't be our duty to be altruistic.
(4) Psychological egoism is true.
(5) Therefore, it can't be our duty to be altruistic.

As Shafer-Landau suggests, the upshot of this argument is that "most of what we take for granted about the ethical life would turn out to be mistaken" if psychological egoism is true. So maybe I've been hasty in thinking that ethicists shouldn't concern themselves with this theory.  I'm curious what readers of this blog think about psychological egoism (generally speaking) and about the argument above (more specifically).

Joel Feinberg: Psychological Egoism

**This is from guest blogger, Michael Dean**

Psychological Egoism is the position that the ultimate motive of all actions is selfish. It is not the position that everyone should be motivated by selfish desires, but rather that they are motivated by selfish desires. This is supposed to be a psychological fact of human motivations. Joel Feinberg presents a multitude of arguments against psychological egoistic hedonism. Of particular interest to me is the “Paradox of Hedonism.” As Feinberg states, “an exclusive desire for happiness is the surest way to prevent happiness from coming into being.” This is the paradox, one cannot be happy by seeking happiness alone. Something besides happiness must be the means to that end. This is analogous to the tennis player who only enjoys tennis when she wins. Her desire to win makes her anxious during her matches, and thus she does not play well and loses. The only way for her to win is to relax and enjoy the game, win or lose. Once she is no longer playing to win, she relaxes and thus wins. Only by letting go of the desire to enjoy winning a game is she able to enjoy the pleasure of winning a game It may be true that happiness is all that is valuable in many of these cases, but this does not entail that the ends of our desires is always happiness, though it may often be a by-product. Another analogy is that of friendship. One cannot truly enjoy a friendship if the end goal of engaging in the friendship is the joys of the friendship. The desire for happiness alone will often, and perhaps necessarily, alienate desiring individual from achieving the desire. The only way to achieve the desire is to no longer desire it. I think the paradox is a successful refutation of psychological egoistic hedonism, and I hope my analogies illuminate how the paradox is cashed out in everyday examples.

On an interesting and related note, I’ve noticed something about a similar, but somewhat opposite argument from psychological egoistic hedonism. This argument might propose that it is a psychological fact that everyone is motivated by a desire to avoid suffering. It’s interesting this sort of argument does not fall victim to the same type of paradox that a desire for happiness does. Buddhist philosophy proposes that everything suffering is a fact of life and that everything we do is to avoid suffering (forgive me for the very basic and sweeping statements of Buddhist philosophy, I’m not well read on the subject). Further, they claim the solution to avoiding suffering is enlightenment. An interest facet of enlightenment is that to achieve it one cannot desire it, this is a very interesting parallel to the discussion of psychological egoistic hedonism which deserves more consideration.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.