Psychological egoism claims that human nature is such that we cannot help but pursue our own self-interest – we are 'wired' to behave in this way, and we cannot do otherwise. This is a particular strength of egoism and explains ethical motivation. I act morally because it benefits me and further my life. We motivate people by appealing to their self-interest (through punishment and rewards). However opponents to psychological egoism claims it renders ethics useless however this accusation assumes that ethical behaviour necessary regards others. They claim there is a host of evidence supporting altruistic actions that cannot be said to engage the self-interest of the agent however psychological egoists may claim that the ultimate motives of acts can never be completely altruistic and always have a self-interested component, e.g. if the agent did not offer aid to a stranger, he or she may feel guilty or may look bad in front of others. A further critique of psychological egoism made famously by Joseph Butler is that I must desire things other than my own welfare in order to get welfare. As an example, if I desired welfare from helping others, unless I desired for its own sake that others do well, I would not derive welfare from helping them. Welfare results from my action but cannot be the only aim.
There is also the social contract theory, which argues that it pays to be moral – however it is first important to know that before the social contract was put in place we was living in what is known as the state of nature, which is the term used to describe the (hypothetical) condition we was living in that preceded authority and the rights/obligations of the social contract. The social contract is a tacit agreement between individuals and their elected government, made by a process of mutual consent. It is a metaphorical contract made where everyone agrees to abide by rules and accept duties to protect themselves and one another from violence, harm, etc. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Rawls all have different ideas on what the world was like in the State of Nature and how it is once the social contract has been introduced, however both Locke and Rousseau share quite a similar theory so I will illustrate what they think in detail in order to illustrate why it may pay to be moral. Locke and Rousseau both believe that the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is 'a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others'. This however does not mean that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all, or even anything that is judged to be in one's self-interest. Although in the State of Nature there is no civil or authority or government to punish people, it is not a state without morality – it is pre-political but not pre-moral. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which according to Locke is the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we do not harm others with regards to their 'life, health, liberty or possessions'. Because we all belong to God, we cannot take away that which is rightfully is. Because of this, it is relatively peaceful.
Then however, Locke says that legitimate government is constituted by the explicit consent of those governed and property plays an essential role in the need for civil government and the contract that establishes it. Private property is created when a person mixes his labour with the raw materials of nature. He believes that civil government is needed because those living in the State of Nature seek protection for their property (and themselves because of the ownership). He says that individual men, who are representing their families which have come about in the voluntary agreements of a conjugal society, come together in the State of Nature and agree to give up the executive power to punish those who transgress the Law of Nature, and hand their power over to the power of a government. They do this for the preservation of their wealth, lives, liberty and well-being (and the same of their family). But Locke also said he could easily imagine the conditions in which the compact with government is destroyed, and that the men are justified in resisting the authority of a civil government (such as a king) if the power of the government devolves into tyranny, i.e. if the men handed over their power in order to protect their property, when this protection is no longer present, they have a right to resist the authority. By signing into this metaphorical contract, we are being moral – as it protects ourselves, our family and our property, therefore proving it does pay to be moral as it benefits us. There are however, critiques about the idea of the social contract theory. We can question the very idea of morality being founded upon a contract, as the contract can be seen as being based upon pre-existing ethical values such as 'promise' and 'punishment'. To put the values into the social contract, we must have had an understanding of what they were before the social contract was founded – so where did they come from? Some theorists argue that morality has evolved along with human beings.
Nietzsche's theory of psychological egoism claims that we will always act in our own self-interest no matter what the rules say, and Hume raises the idea of 'sensible knave' which is a person who fully understands the moral rules but who decides not to follow them. It could be argued it does not pay to be moral as for example, following the social contract may limit our self-interests – it could stop us from getting what we want when we want it as we are not allowed to steal things. We do also not necessarily have to sign into a social contract in order to be moral, for instance, we obey moral rules when it comes to caring for both young children and animals even though we can not enter into a reciprocal relationship with them as they can not agree to the social contract. It is also worth considering the nature of altruism, if morality is entirely based upon a form of egoism, then this leaves no room for helping others because it is the right thing to do. Egoism claims that it may and may not benefit us to act moral – not because it is best to pursue our self-interests for our own personal gain, however it may benefit us because it will make us feel good. There are both arguments for and against whether it pays to be moral, however being moral seems like the best thing to do – you can still benefit from doing so without the risk of being punished for breaking the laws of the social contract or without the risk of even being killed within the State of Nature due to property, it is in our self-interest to act morally because it is mutually beneficial for everyone.
