• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Self-interest plays no part in genuine morality

Extracts from this document...


Self-interest plays no part in genuine morality We all have different views about whether self-interest plays part in morality or not. Kant for instance believed that an act is not moral if it is motivated by self-interest. Morality should be a form of altruism. The psychological egoism claims that the only possible form of motivation is self-interest with no concern of altruism, so every act is just to 'satisfy' ourselves, which is also not seen as a negative feature. If self-interest has nothing to do with morality then why are we moral and if our self-interest is the only source of motivation, are we moral at all? Kant claims that being moral is rational and if we act considering our self-interest, it is immoral, because reason should make us take an impartial point of view, overruling our self-interest and emotion. For instance people are tired but they all have to get up and go to work. The bodily desires are clashing with our duty and in this case our reason tells us to do the right thing. We also have to be the 'man of good will', which means to do our duty and the "good" does not necessarily mean the word 'good' used in everyday language. ...read more.


We feel much better without these conflicts and worries. The only possible way to achieve happiness and peace in the mind is through reason. Desires never know what is good for our future. A happy soul is happy to accept the rule of reason and to restrict desires, which just cause chaos. For instance the desires of an immoral person are out of control, and deceive this person, as desires are not for what that particular person needs. Thus we do not feel what is in fact good for us because we think it is better to get everything we want, than acting morally. A virtuous person knows the values of morally right and wrong. And they are happier because reason tells them to do the right thing and they do not have mental conflicts. There is a very good example of how Mr Lincoln saved some pigs from drowning and as his fellow asked the reason of his act, he said: 'I did it to get peace of mind, don't you see?' This argument is more convincing than the one from Kant but I do not agree with the claim that we should totally restrict our desires, as sometimes we still want to achieve the goals which are some of our desires but not immediately because we can think and decide whether it is really good for us or not. ...read more.


But in fact the way how he describes morality and our motivation, it is just slightly different from the other theories where self-interest can play part of morality. The difference is that Kant believes that self-interest is the same as selfishness. On the other hand Aristotle and Plato know that self-interest does not necessarily mean selfishness. It is in my self-interest indeed to be moral, because I want that; therefore I would not care being moral at all if it was not good for me or if it would not make me happy. As I am rational and I know morality helps more for me, my future and the other people. I also believe that everyone should accept morality and the fact that morality is important in order to have a stable society and a stable life. Whatever a person does, he has to be WILLING to that. If one has an aim, it means one want to reach it. It would be also foolish to question one's act for the reason why one is doing it. He would say I do it because I want to do it! As I concluded before I believe that self-interest plays a very important role in morality, because the only motivation why we are alive is the will to live and the will to do things, therefore it is in our self-interest to do so, but it does not mean that we are selfish. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. Discuss some of the issues raised in Meta-Ethics. How convincing is the view that, ...

    Thus, it is untrue that - when talking of morality - we are talking about facts. In morality, then, there is a difference in how language is used. In everyday communication, language can be used in either 'cognitive' or 'non-cognitive' ways.

  2. "Humanitarian intervention, which is ruled out by realism and the morality of states, can ...

    If there are no universally acceptable moral standards, no moral standards can be applied across the globe. It is very difficult to decipher whether or not humanitarian intervention is in conflict with the doctrine of cultural relativism. If one supposes that humanitarian intervention is justified in one instance, for example

  1. `Always tell the truth and Always keep your promises' Kant's Categorical Imperative.

    according to the logic of the categorical imperative we find that it works. The imperative itself has no content and recommends no specific maxim. It is necessarily devoid of content. We, as the rational and free agents, must construct the various maxims which are to guide our moral lives.

  2. Religion and Morality

    This is supported by philosophers such as John Newman who states that feelings of responsibility and guilt point to God, and by D.I Trethowan, who suggests that an awareness of obligation is an awareness of God. Aii) Morality as independent from Religion A belief in morality as being totally independant

  1. Evaluate Korsgaard's discussion of the Universalizability Argument. In what ways does she conform with ...

    Moral law tells us to act only on maxims that all rational beings could agree to act together in a workable cooperative system. Korsgaard gives emphasis to the role of the moral law not only to will what the categorical imperative wills but to will a moral principle that could

  2. Business environment

    Yet, the control is not effective unless it limits the decision discretion of the managers. In practice, the board has limited power and control [see The American Law Institute, (1982) for a delineation of the powers and functions of the Board of Directors].

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work