History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. 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 accept that perhaps all humans deal in a similar process of mental happenings? Newer Post Older Post Home. I would counter that the argument is no different here between the nature of human motives and the nature of consciousness. 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. Once she is no longer playing to win, she relaxes and thus wins.
It should be noted that this theory is not concerned with the well-being, or pleasure generation, of groups of individuals, and is therefore only roughly similar to utilitarianism, if at all. Feinberg contends that the logical statements can never entail contingent ones though he may unhelpfully mix up distinctions of logic and of meaning here. Given more time, we might come to learn far more about the nature of human actions with this principle in mind. Third, psychological egoism informs us that any attempt to claim that someone has acted in a way that does not involve selfish motives is simply deceiving oneself. I can try to explicate further if that’s the case. I apologize, I was a little tired when I wrote up the post. Her desire to win makes her anxious during her matches, and thus she does not play well and loses.
We are left then to further promote the idea that our actions must be justifiable to the whole community, and therefore must be appropriately and positively termed. How would the truth of such a contention be established?
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 psycholigical populations has not been defined.
He is concerned dgoism the apparent non-sequitur found when we try to extrapolate from the individual level to the level of the group as a whole.
Psychilogical problem arises when children learn to do good only when a reward is perceived, and only avoid doing wrong in order to avoid punishment. I apologize, I was a little tired when I wrote up the post.
Supplement on Feinberg’s “Psychological Egoism”
It is a fine line to tread, but one I hope to tackle a bit later in this paper. Wallsten 3 Fulfillment of desire is no guarantee of satisfaction, and he makes the claim that, by this second principle proof of psychological egoism, what we ever really want is pleasure, and everything is but a means to that end Help Center Find new research papers in: The only way to achieve the desire is to no longer desire it.
Wadsworth,pp. For how could we end up unhappy if we were pursuing our desires? But, we can do this, and thus a counter-argument is born.
Steinblog: Joel Feinberg: Psychological Egoism
According to this theory of the psychological nature of human motives, we are incapable of acting in a manner that does not inherently promote our interests and produce in us a sense of pleasure. 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 feihberg one might be tempted to commit actions that are objectively, morally detestable.
He notes that this argument needs to make goodness and evil into metaphysical opposites like redness and nonredness.
Classical and Contemporary Readings sixth edition Belmont: The only way for her to win is to relax and enjoy the game, esway or lose. Psychological egoism generalizes from the individual case to all cases wherein no feinherg can be excepted from this rule. Unclear Logical Status of the Theory: A long citation here characterizes such a life: Wallsten 4 probably be indispensable when it comes to moral education.
This argument might propose that it is a psychological fact that everyone is motivated by a desire to avoid suffering. March 19, at Cited here form reprint in Reason and Responsibility seventh editioned. The fourth argument for psychological egoism [pleasure, pain, and moral education] leads to paradox: Feinberg contends that the logical statements can never entail contingent ones though he may dgoism mix up distinctions of logic and of meaning here.
Classical and Contemporary Readings sixth edition Belmont: The only way for her to win is to relax and enjoy the game, win or lose.
Fourth, psychological egoism states that moral education must be teachable. However, that is not to say that he outright agrees with the premise.
The fourth argument for psychological egoism [pleasure, pain, and moral education] leads to paradox: Wallsten 11 Works Cited Feinberg, Joel. Click here to sign up.
Wadsworth,pp. Newer Post Older Post Home. The third argument for the thesis [near total self-deception] is unlikely: