JOEL FEINBERG PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM ESSAY

Is Management Theory Too ” Self-ish “. It is not really an attack on the theory itself, but rather on the implications of the theory. 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 failure, and is impossible. Log In Sign Up. This is supposed to be a psychological fact of human motivations. This is supposed to be a psychological fact of human motivations. Psychology is rife with situations wherein it is very difficult to measure some aspect of human nature, yet this does not give rise to an automatic discrediting of the entire theory that would seek to explain them.

Cited here form reprint in Reason and Responsibility seventh edition , ed. It is a fine line to tread, but one I hope to tackle a bit later in this paper. We act in a way that guarantees our means to an end, the only end we can care about: This case sums as follows: Oxford University Press,

Fourth, psychological egoism states joeo moral education must be teachable. After all, many psychological theories are based upon such extrapolations since they deal with elements of the human mind that are incapable of empirical scrutiny think of the theories of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, to name but a few. He thinks that if this deeper assumption is true, then its inevitable result is already egoism at the outset. Feinberg finds the premise, beginning with the individual, to be incapable of flowing logically towards a descriptor of all human actions.

Log In Sign Up. Feinberg contends that the logical statements can never entail contingent ones though he may unhelpfully mix up distinctions of logic and of meaning here.

joel feinberg psychological egoism essay

Click here to sign up. Feinberg clarifies psychological egoism and maintains that there are several things wrong with this theory. On that basis, I support psychological egoism and all of its conclusions. Sorry, if you mean that it’s hard to follow my arguments. In no way do my actions indicate I had any motives in mind other than my own pleasure.

  RADIODIAGNOSIS THESIS TOPICS

Steinblog: Joel Feinberg: Psychological Egoism

It is claimed that the acknowledgment of the necessity of the particular passions for the experience of pleasure rules out pleasure as the sole motive of ones actions the argument can be generalised to refer to self-interest or self-benefit rather than mere pleasure. Here, again, we can peychological 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 eoism be more thoroughly evaluated in the analysis of the second counter- argument presented by Feinberg.

Another analogy is that of friendship. Once this ambiguity is exposed, the premises no longer support the conclusion and the argument fails. Psychological egoism generalizes from the individual case to all cases wherein no person can be excepted from this rule.

As shown earlier, we are not always rational feihberg, and even when we are we cannot know all psychollogical outcomes; therefore, a psychological egoist would claim the theory cannot be faulted when bad planning or erroneous decision-making leads to unexpectedly neutral or displeasing outcomes.

Wallsten 2 ever responsible for directing your own actions. Analytic statements —true by definition here empirical information is irrelevant and superfluous.

joel feinberg psychological egoism essay

Feinbrg now, we should accept the premise as true. It is esswy certifiable that if we cannot easily know something — or easily measure, or find a way to measure that, something — we cannot know anything about it, as I feel he claims; after all, we cannot easily determine the nature of particles at a quantum level, yet we may still make claims about their behaviors at the level of individual particles and as groups of particles.

Unclear Logical Status of psychoogical Theory: We are concerned with how others perceive us, and therefore, we act in a way that finberg others pleasure so that we may gain pleasure by virtue of having acted in such a way that brings positive attention from those we gain pleasure from pleasing.

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.

  DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL DWARKA WINTER HOLIDAY HOMEWORK

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.

The only way to achieve the desire is to no longer desire it.

joel feinberg psychological egoism essay

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 jodl to this will be more thoroughly evaluated in the analysis of the second counter- argument presented by Feinberg.

As shown earlier, we are not always rational actors, and even when we are we cannot know all possible outcomes; therefore, a psychological egoist would claim the theory cannot be faulted when bad planning or erroneous decision-making leads to unexpectedly neutral or displeasing outcomes.

Psychological Egoism

Posted by Jesse Steinberg at 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 pdychological, sound, and strong logical argument has not been brought forward it is necessarily doomed to failure, and is impossible.

It is a sad fact that psychological egoism allows for morally detestable outcomes, but this is not to be unexpected; the psychologicwl does not attempt to say how we ought to be, but how we are. This would require knowing all possible actions and all possible outcomes in order to guarantee rational decision-making.

But, we can do this, and thus a counter-argument is born. He notes that this argument needs to make goodness and evil into metaphysical opposites like redness and nonredness.

Feinberg contends that the logical statements can never entail contingent ones though he may unhelpfully mix up distinctions of logic and of meaning here. Oxford University Press, I can try to explicate further if that’s the case.