Philosophy Chapter 4: Myself or Others?

Force Majeure (p.213-216)

A family, dad Tomas, mom Ebba from Norway, and the two kids, Vera and Harry, are vacationing at a winter sports resort in the French Alps, and eventually an Avalanche is triggered and white mist comes hurdling at the family while they are eating, Ebba grabs the kids, and Tomas grabs his phone and runs off, then the two argue about the story for sometime, Tomas insists that that is not what happened, Tomas later runs into a friend, Mat, with a young girlfriend, Fanny, and Mat supports Tomas, saying in survival mode we do not always stick to our values, sometime later they find out Tomas's phone recorded the incident, and Ebba's version of the story is true and the family gives him the cold shoulder, additionally, Fanny realizes that Mat left his wife and kids to be with her, so he is a lot less attractive to her Eventually, Tomas comes to the realization that he has betrayed his family, and begs for their forgiveness, but on the last day of the vacation, it is windy, w/ no visibility on the slope, and Ebba is nowhere in sight, so Tomas goes looking for her, but he leaves the kids behind

Being Selfless: Levinas's Ideal Altruism Versus Singer's Reciprocal Altruism (p.196-199)

Altruism is the counter to psychological and ethical egoism Why do we see soldier's sacrifice as noble, but not terrorists? Because "group egoism", we only care about the interests of our group Lithuanian-French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas advocated Ideal Altruism in a normative sense, that we should always put others above ourselves, not popular as it is too extreme Australian philosopher Pete Singer advocated reciprocal altruism, we look out for others and they look out for us Says it is okay to look out for one's self as long as it doesn't disadvantage another Makes sense on an evolutionary and social scale, as, if someone is in danger, looking out for each-other increases odds of survival Also advocated effective altruism, form of charity where donations are distributed where they do most good

Ayn Rand and the Virtue of Selfishness (p.190-193)

Ayn Rand (1905-1982), a philosopher, playwright, and novelist who immigrated to the U.S. from communist Russia, Not very popular in her time, as she explored philosophy through stories, didn't have an advanced philosophy degree, was conservative, and was a woman Primary philosophy was Objectivism, belief that greatest moral goal was one's own happiness, is rooted in ethical egoism In '"The Ethics of Emergencies." she argued that self-interest is best, and altruism is "moral cannibalism" that pulls people down into perverted value system Argued for a fiscally (financially) conservative laissez-faire (hands-off) govt. Engage in whatever enhances your own life, if donating to charity is that, then that is fine, if buying yourself stuff is that, then that is fine Critics have several points... 1) Believe her theory is a blatant supporter of capitalism and stark selfishness 2) Doesn't create a better world, but one of have's and have-not's, where the have's prey on the have-not's 3) Fallacy of False Dichotomy, as she lists two choices, fundamental altruism where you lay down your life for others, or objectivism (self-serving), but those aren't the only choices Her theory fell in popularity up until the 2008 financial crisis, where her work shot up in popularity

David Hume's Emotionalism (p.200-201)

David Hume's (1711-1776) theory rooted in soft universalism, believed that our sense of good or bad, of values, come from how we feel about certain things Believed compassion for others was part of human nature, a universal value, all normal people have a concern for one another Goes along w/ recent findings in neuroscience, that we have a natural tendency for empathy, even if it can be overridden by pressure & rationality, and is stronger for our loved ones, it's there

Ethical Egoism and Ayn Rand's Objectivism (p.187)

Ethical Egoism tells us how we ought to act (with self-interest), Psychological Egoism tells us how we do act Former is normative, latter is descriptive

You Should Look After Yourself (p.187-190)

Ethical Egoism twists the Golden Rule, we should do unto others as we would want done to us, because we could benefit from said treatment Focuses on the consequences of one's actions, it is a consequential theory Egoists conflicted on if we should do what we want, or do what is good for us Former sounds bad, but latter simply means we should do what is best for us in the long run Other people's interests only should be catered to if it benefits us It is okay to disadvantage others, as long as it benefits us, and we get away w/ it Interesting trivia, there are variations on the Golden Rule, one is the Platinum Rule (Treat others as they would want to be treated), though that takes the universal appeal out of it

The Fallacy of the Suppressed Correlative (p.182-184)

Has the fallacy of the suppressed correlative present, as it goes against language Some acts more selfish than others, egoists may use term more selfish or less selfish, but isn't less selfish simply selfless? For "selfish" to exist it must have a correlative, "unselfish", but if everything is selfish, selfishness doesn't exist, it's the norm, so to say it exists is to say selflessness does as well Egoists may argue that, though not present in people, the concept of unselfish exists, but then it still is nonsensical... 1) If everyone is selfish to the bone, theory is outright false 2) If everyone has a selfish streak, the theory is rather trivial as that is self-evident

Leviathan (p.210)

Hobbes argues that when everybody is at war with one another, and lack a common power to keep them under control, right and wrong cease to exist, he is essentially saying that they are relative to each person, and given that Hobbes believes everybody to be selfish, he likely believes that this isn't an inherently bad thing, as right and wrong do not exist, it is relative to each individual

The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS (p.211-213)

Joey is set to be on PBS, arguing that he is doing good by helping PBS while also getting TV exposure himself, Phoebe argues that the only reason he wants on TV is for selfish reasons, and Joey says that Phoebe is selfish for being a surrogate mother for her brother as it made her feel good, so Phoebe sets out to find an unselfish good deed, she rakes leaves, but is rewarded so under Joey's definition, it is selfish, she lets a bee sting her, but it died, so it didn't benefit, then she donates 200$ to PBS who she hates, finally seeming selfless, it takes a turn when this causes Joey to be put into the spotlight, and she feels good about herself, so again, selfish (under Joey's terms)

Falsification Is Not Possible (p.178-180)

Karl Popper (1902-1994), advanced idea of falsification, that a theory is only good if it recognizes the possibility of being wrong Egoism is an absolutist theory, based on induction, leaves no room for falsification Also has the fallacy of "begging the question", assumes itself to be true, so it isn't a scientific theory Prejudice in a sense, as it takes any situation and motive, and interprets them to fit its premise

Psychological Egoism: From Glaucon to Hobbes (p.171-178)

Plato's brother, Glaucon, believed in Social Contract Theory, that morality is simply a result of looking out for ourselves, as immorality has consequences in society Assumes that humans came together to form society for.. 1) Sake of common good 2) Self-protection Believed both good people and scoundrels will do bad if they know they can get away w/ it, and they're stupid if they don't Stories of invisibility rings (Lord of the Rings), often tell us, that if you let selfish-nature rule, either other people or fate will punish you Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) agreed, held that.. 1) Humans live in a society w/ rules for self-preservation 2) Self-interested by nature, any self-less act is rooted in concern for the self 3) It's dumb to not be self-interested Believed pity for others rooted in fear of ourselves ending up in said situation, but then why help if it means putting yourself near their situation? Extreme, but appealing theory, as it seems honest, is cynical (modern times, cynicism seems appealing), and leaves room for selfish nature as an excuse Egoists say, though everything we do is rooted in selfish motive, doesn't mean we can't help being brutally selfish "Ought Implies Can", used by egoists to say, as we are selfish by nature, it is irrational to force selflessness on people

Psychological Egoism: What About the Heroes? (167-171)

Psychological Egoism - Descriptive theory, absolutist theory, states that all human actions- good or bad- are at some level motivated by selfish intent Ethical Egoism - Normative theory, absolutist theory, belief that people should always look out for themselves Egoism = selfish Egotism = high opinion of one's self Selfishness commonly seen as bad, but egoists don't necessarily see it as bad, sometimes use word self-interested instead

The Selfish-Gene Theory and Its Critics (p.184-187)

Richard Dawkins, in book "The Selfish Gene", argued that animals are genetically hardwired to protect their genes, as humans grew up in small tribes where everyone was related to some extent, selflessness is a misfiring of this gene as our instincts still carry this on in large societies We should be altruistic, but in this case, biologically makes no sense Edward O. Wilson, previous supporter of selfish gene, now believed that altruism is a result of the battle between individual and group selection (latter favors social human existance) British philosopher Mary Midgley, goes with parsimony (simple explanation), argued that we have the built in capacity to care for our family, and at times we extend that to strangers who become "honorary relatives" Dawkins sees "selfish" as a biological term, it is descriptive, while Midgley sees it as a moral term, it is normative, as their definitions differ, difficult for them to agree In "The Mythology of Selfishness," (2016), Midgley claims that Dawkin's theory must fail, as it doesn't account for human choice and preference

Problems with Ethical Egoism (p.193-196)

Socrate's argument against Glaucon is that an unjust person is unbalanced, as happiness consists of a balance of reason, desire, and willpower (Reason dominates willpower, and willpower dominates desire) Didn't focus on selfishness being wrong, but on communitarianism (ensuring well-being of community), an unjust person is unbalanced, thus unhealthy, thus unhappy as this will lead to their community shunning them Though, sometimes unjust people die happy, so there's other arguments against ethical egoism.. 1) It is contradictory/inconsistent, as a moral theory cannot say one's duty is to conflict w/ the interests of another Could argue that as long as we mind our own business, the theory works, but a hands-off theory has everyone's best interests as heart, so it isn't a theory of egoism anymore 2) Doesn't solve moral problems, but some egoists believe it doesn't have to, that isn't it's purpose, as it is a basic approach 3) Doesn't work in practice if everyone looks out for themselves, competition is too fierce if we look out for other's while keeping ulterior motives quiet, it requires us to be dishonest, so it isn't a moral theory Doesn't extend to everyone, varies too much from person to person 4) Doesn't account for emotions, what if we see someone murder someone? Are we still supposed to look out for ourselves?

Doing What We Want Isn't Always Selfish (p.180-182)

Some acts are selfish, some are selfless, and some are mixed How do we define what is "selfish"? Is it the objective? If what you want is the best interests of another (Ex: Lincoln feeling good about saving the pigs, for their sake, not his), then it isn't really selfish If, what you want, is simply to feel good or personal-benefit, even if the action seems selfless, it is selfish (Ex: Lincoln feeling good about saving the pigs, for his sake, to benefit somehow)

Can Animals Have Morals? (p.201-204)

Though some argue that cases of animals helping humans is a matter of training, not empathy or altruism, but within their own groups animals have shown empathy to some extent Chimps have been known to share food, and show anger when those who don't share expect a share Some argue children are born selfish, but recent findings show even toddlers show signs of empathy There is the genetic fallacy, confusing what something is w/ it's origins, even if children are born selfish, socialization makes them not, so we can't pin this on adults too In "Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals (1996)" Frans de Waal says only humans can take pleasure in harming others, but apes and humans have the capacity for selfless caring for others If animals have empathy, do they have morals? ecologist Marc Bekoff in book "Wild Justice"(2009) claims that nearly all social animals have a sense of fairness, all the way down to rats Humans are unique as we are very good at overriding natural empathy w/ reason, but that is good in some cases, allows us to see the bigger picture

A Natural Fellow-Feeling? Hume and de Waal (p.199-200)

Three major schools of thought seek to explain the root of values.. 1) Veneer theory, come from socialization, a necessary "veneer" over feral self-oriented human nature 2) Capacity of rational thought to get past instinct and emotions to reach fair solutions 3) Emotionalism, as we feel strong feelings, act on them, then try to rationalize what we did

Plato's, the Republic (p.204-209)

https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/republic/section2/