I might believe that an action is morally right, but this does not give me a motive to perform it. Discuss. (30)

Authors Avatar

‘I might believe that an action is morally right, but this does not give me a motive to perform it.’ Discuss. (30)

Psychological egoism claims that human nature is such that we cannot help but pursue our self-interest, we are biologically and psychologically disposed to behave in this way. It is a fact that we automatically act to promote our own interest and we cannot do otherwise. This theory highlights a strength of egoism as a whole, and it also explains ethical motivation. I act morally because it benefits me, and furthers my own life. It places human actions firmly and consistently within the natural world: like all plants and creatures, we seek or own good. This is a convincing answer to the question – ‘why be moral?’, and this theory also agreements with the statement expressed in the question.

Psychological egoism claims that even if something is morally right, we have no motive to perform it unless it benefits us and furthers our own life. However, it could be argued that being moral simply requires us to conform with moral rules or be a ‘virtuous character’ – and there is nothing to specifically say that following moral rules or being virtuous will not be of benefit for us. An example could be used is the moral rule that it is wrong for us to steal – a psychological egoist may claim that it is in our best interest to steal as it enables us to have anything whenever we want, but then it could be said that it is in our interest not to steal (therefore conforming with moral rules) so we do not go to prison if we are caught. As an illustration in relation to being virtuous, imagine a soldier on the front line who gives his life in order to save others – although this would be seen by the majority of people as a good or ‘virtuous’ action, it does not help him to be happy or flourish. In order for psychological egoism to maintain its theory regarding an incident like the soldier, the situation and circumstances would have to be stretched so far as to say in the spur of the moment, the soldier was in fact not thinking about the welfare of others, but instead something along the lines of ‘if I give my life, then I might be in the newspaper tomorrow’ – this is undeniably absurd, why would the soldier even consider what the newspapers might say about him if he would be dead anyway? This is where virtue ethics comes into play, however opponents of virtue ethics may argue that the soldier could have already flourished or reached ‘eudaimonia’ (a theory made famous by Aristotle, which I will mention later) when he made the decision, although this may also be countered by saying that there is no way of knowing when you have become ‘virtuous’, and that all of your choices are moral.

Join now!

On the other hand, it could be said that virtue ethics provides a better and more ‘true-to-life’ way of looking at the situation of the soldier giving his life for others, and virtue ethics as opposed to egoism disagrees with the statement that is put forward in the question, and famous philosophers like Plato and Aristotle believe that something being morally right does give us motive to perform it. They believe this because virtue ethics claims that our main aim in life is to be truly happy, but we will only be able to do this if we are completely ...

This is a preview of the whole essay