Imagine a person (let's call him "Jones") who is, first of all, devoid of intellectual curiosity. He has no desire to acquire any kind of knowledge for its own sake, and thus is truly indifferent to questions of science, mathematics, and philosophy. Image further that the beauties of nature leave Jones cold: he is unimpressed by the autumn foliage, the snow-capped mountains, and the rolling oceans. Long walks in the country on spring mornings and skiing forays in the winter are to him equally a bore. Moreover, let us suppose that Jones can find no appeal in art. Novels are dull, poetry a pain, paintings nonsense, and music just noise. Suppose further that Jones has neither the participant's nor the spectator's passion for baseball, football, tennis, or any other sport. Swimming to him is a cruel aquatic form of calisthenics, the sun only a cause of sunburn. Dancing is coeducational idiocy, conversation a waste of time, the other sex an unappealing mystery. Politics is a fraud, religion mere superstition; and the misery of millions of underprivileged human beings is nothing to be concerned with or excited about. Suppose finally that Jones has no talent for any kind of handicraft, industry, or commerce, and that he does not regret that fact.
What then is Jones interested in? He must desire something. To be sure, he does. Jones has an overwhelming passion for, a complete preoccupation with, his own happiness. The one exclusive desire of his life is to be happy.
Will Jones be able to satisfy his desire to be happy?
"Psychological egoism" is a theory that we are motivated, only and always, by our own self-interest, by our desire for our own happiness, and that, therefore, we are incapable of purely altruistic desires and acts. Philosophers are interested in psychological egoism because if it is indeed true, then many theories about what we should do are useless - for what's the point of saying we should do X if we can't do X (because we can only do Y)? (That is, "ought" should imply "can" - the "out implies can" principle.) More specifically, if psychological egoism is true (we act according to our own self-interest), then virtue ethics (we should act in accordance to certain virtues such as honesty and generosity), utilitarian ethics (we should act so as to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number), and so on are merely interesting intellectual exercises and not valuable prescriptions for morally acceptable human behavior.
Feinberg presents this thought experiment in order to demonstrate that psychological egoism is untenable, for Feinberg claims that Jones will not be able to satisfy his desire to be happy. People can be happy, Feinberg claims, only when they desire something other than their own happiness. And since many people are happy, it follows that many people do desire something other than their own happiness. Therefore, psychological egoism is false.
Sources:
Joel Feinberg. "Psychological Egoism." In Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. 3rd ed. Joel Feinberg, ed. Encino, CA: Dickenson, 1975. 501-512. 505.
Peg Tittle. What If...Collected Thought Experiments in Philosophy. Part 7, Ethics: Ethical Theory. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 162-163.
|