Rachels and His Psychological Egoism

Are men capable of being unselfish and acting in the interests of others? Psychological egoism states that all men are selfish and the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self-interest. Even when men are acting in ways apparently calculate to benefit others, they are actually motivated by the belief that acting in this way is to their own advantage, and if they did not believe this, they would not be doing that action (Rachels, 1986, pp.74). Psychological egoists argue that: (1) assuming that the action is done voluntarily, the agent is merely doing what he most wants to do. Since the agent is only doing what he wants to do, he cannot be said to be acting unselfishly (Rachels, 1986, pp.75); (2) since so-called unselfish actions always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the agent, and since this sense of satisfaction is a pleasant state of consciousness, it follows that the point of the action is really to achieve a pleasance state of consciousness, rather than to bring about any good for others (Rachels, 1986, pp.76).

James Rachels (1986) discusses psychological egoism and argues against the plausibility of psychological egoism in his piece titled Egoism and Moral Scepticism. Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory resulting from observations from human behavior. As such, it can only be a true empirical theory if there are no exceptions. A purported law only needs one disconfirming instance to disprove it. Rachels (1986) argues that the descriptive psychological law that all persons act from the motive of self-interest is false because there are many disconfirming instances. For example, Smith gives up a trip to the country in order to help a friend with his studies. Psychological egoists argues that if Smith stays to help his friend, that only shows that he wanted to help his friend more than he wanted to go to the country. He is only doing what he wants to do and therefore cannot be said to be acting unselfishly (Rachels, 1986, pp.75)....