ETHICS- chapter 6- Egoism, self- interest, and altruism

Mr. Lincoln once remarked to a fellow-passenger on an old-time mud-coach that all men were prompted by selfishness in doing good. His fellow-passenger was antagonizing this position when they were passing over a corduroy bridge that spanned a slough. As they crossed this bridge they espied an old razorbacked sow on the bank making a terrible noise because her pigs had got into the slough and were in danger of drowning. As the old coach began to climb the hill, Mr. Lincoln called out, "Driver, can't you stop just a moment?" Then Mr. Lincoln jumped out, ran back and lifted the little pigs out of the mud and water and placed them on the bank. When he returned, his companion remarked: "Now Abe, where does selfishness come in on this little episode?" "Why, bless your soul, Ed, that was the very essence of selfishness. I should have had no peace of mind all day had I gone on and left that suffering old sow worrying over those pigs. I did it to get peace of mind, don't you see?"

Abraham lincoln- self satisfaction argument

His argument goes like this: Suppose we existed outside of any society, without laws or agreed-on morality, in a "state of nature." There are no common ways of life, no means of settling conflicts of interest except violence, no reliable expectations of how other people will behave. Further, people are inherently selfish; they will follow their own inclinations and perceived interests, tending to act and react and overreact in fearful, capricious, and violent ways. The result of life in the state of nature is chaotic anarchy where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." According to Hobbes, we are driven to survive at all costs, and we see that it would be better for all of us, individually and collectively, if we adopted certain minimal rules that would override immediate self-interest whenever self-interest was a threat to others. Thus, the notion of a mutually agreed-on moral code arises from a situation of rational self-interest. But, of course, the moral code will not work if only some obey it. To prevent violations, Hobbes proposes a strong central government with a powerful police force and a sure and effective system of punishment. The threat of being caught and punished should function as a deterrence to crime. People must believe that offenses against the law are not in their overall interest. The engine that drives Hobbes's entire theory is psychological egoism: Selfishness forces us into chaos, and selfishness forces us to solve the problem through mutually agreed-on moral codes. For Hobbes, human action is predominantly motivated by self-interest. That is, human nature causes us to be heavily biased toward our own self-interest over that of others' interest. Because we cannot act altruistically without unreasonable effort, it follows that it is morally permissible to act entirely out of self-interest. Further, the approach that Hobbes takes in developing our self-interested moral obligations is rather sophisticated and ultimately leads us to adopt familiar moral principles. Enlightened common sense tells us that we should aim at fulfilling our long-term versus our short-term interests, so we need to refrain from immediate gratification of our senses—from doing those things that would break down the social conditions that enable us to reach our goals. We should even, perhaps, generally obey the Golden Rule, "Do to others as you would have them do to you," for doing good to others will help ensure that they do good to us. First, by advocating a more moderate version of psychological egoism, he sidesteps at least some of the attacks on psychological egoism that we previously examined. Second, Hobbes does more than just rule out the possibility of morally obligatory acts of altruism: He seeks to establish a concrete moral obligation toward maximizing our long-term individual self-interest. Specifically, for Hobbes, we are morally permitted to perform egoistic acts that lead to our individual survival. In short, Hobbes's theory is plausible but not foolproof.

Hobbes's Argument from Predominant Psychological Egoism

The contemporary writer whose name is most associated with ethical egoism is Ayn Rand. In her book The Virtue of Selfishness, she argues that selfishness is a virtue and altruism a vice, a totally destructive idea that leads to the undermining of individual worth. Rand defines altruism as the view that Any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus, the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as the beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes. As Rand says, "Man's proper values and interests, that concern with his own interests, is the essence of a moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions." We all really want to be the beneficiary, but society has deceived us into thinking egoism is evil and altruism good, that collectivist mediocrity is virtuous and bold creativity is a vice. We have an inalienable right to seek our own happiness and fulfillment, Rand argues, regardless of its effects on others. Altruism would deny us this right, so it is the "creed of corruption." Since finding our ego-centered happiness is the highest goal and good in life, altruism, which calls on us to sacrifice our happiness for the good of others, is contrary to our highest good. Her argument goes something like this: (1) The perfection of one's abilities in a state of happiness is the highest goal for humans. We have a moral duty to attempt to reach this goal. (2) The ethics of altruism prescribes that we sacrifice our interests and lives for the good of others. (3) Therefore, the ethics of altruism is incompatible with the goal of happiness. (4) Ethical egoism prescribes that we seek our own happiness exclusively, and as such it is consistent with the happiness goal. (5) Therefore, ethical egoism is the correct moral theory. Rand seems to hold that every individual has a duty to seek his or her own good first, regardless of how it affects others. She seems to base this duty on the fact that the actions of every living organism are "directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism's life." From this, she infers that the highest value is the organism's self-preservation. Ultimately, each of us should take care of Number One, the "I-god," letting the devil take care of anyone not strong enough to look after himself. In a nutshell, it appears to be flawed by the fallacy of a false dilemma. It simplistically assumes that absolute altruism and absolute egoism are the only alternatives. But, this is an extreme view of the matter. Rand slides back and forth between advocating selfishness and self-interest. These are, however, different concepts. Self-interest means we are concerned to promote our own good, although not necessarily at any cost. I want to succeed, but I recognize that sometimes I will justly fail to do so. I accept the just outcome even though it is frustrating. Selfishness entails that I sacrifice the good of others for my own good, even when it is unjust to do so. Self-interest is a legitimate part of our nature whereas selfishness is an aberration, a failure to accept the moral point of view. Thus, Rand's thesis that ethics requires "that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action" is not supported by good argument, and it is further contradicted by our common moral experience.

Rand's Argument for the Virtue of Selfishness

"nice guys finish last"

leo durocher

everyone is an egoist because everyone always tries to do what will bring him or her satisfaction. (it is most famously given by Abraham Lincoln.)

simple statement of the argument from self satisfaction

There is indeed a difference between pure altruism and reciprocal altruism, but, to a degree, we have duties to both of these kinds of altruism. On the one hand, we seem to have a special duty of pure altruism toward those in the close circle of our concern—namely, our family and friends. Our behavior toward them should be as selfless as possible. On the other hand, we have duties to cooperate and reciprocate but no duty to serve those who manipulate us, nor any obvious duty to sacrifice ourselves for people outside our domain of special responsibility. The larger lesson to be drawn is that we should provide moral training so that children grow up to be spontaneously altruistic in a society that rewards such socially useful behavior. In this way, what is legitimate about egoism can be merged with altruism in a manner that produces deep individual flourishing. Through our efforts to instill altruistic behavior in our children, we increasingly expand the circle of our moral concerns, wider and wider, eventually reaching all humanity, and, possibly, the animal kingdom.

What lessons can we learn from sociobiology's account of morality?

5 arguments against ethical egoism

1. The Inconsistent Outcomes Argument 2. The Publicity Argument 3. The Paradox of Ethical Egoism 4. The Argument from Counterintuitive Consequences 5. The Problem of Future Generations

The publicity argument against ethical egoism states that an egoist cannot publicly advertise his egoistic project without harming that very project. On the one hand, for something to be a moral theory, it seems necessary that its moral principles be publicized. Unless principles are put forth as universal prescriptions that are accessible to the public, they cannot serve as guides to action or as aids in resolving conflicts of interest. But on the other hand, it is not in the egoist's self-interest to publicize them. Egoists would rather that the rest of us be altruists.For example, we might ask why did Rand write books announcing her positions? Was the money that she received from her book by announcing ethical egoism worth the price of letting the cat out of the bag? Thus, it would be self-defeating for the egoist to argue for her position—and even worse that she should convince others of it. But, it is perfectly possible to have a private morality that does not resolve conflicts of interest. Thus, the egoist should publicly advocate standard principles of traditional morality—so that society doesn't break down—while adhering to a private, nonstandard, solely self regarding morality. So, if you're willing to pay the price, you can accept the solipsistic-directed norms of egoism. If the egoist is prepared to pay the price, egoism could be a consistent system that has some limitations. Although the egoist can cooperate with others in limited ways and perhaps even have friends—as long as their interests don't conflict with his—he has to be very careful about preserving his isolation. The egoist can't give advice or argue about his position—not sincerely at least. He must act alone, atomistically or solipsistically in moral isolation, for to announce his adherence to the principle of egoism would be dangerous to his project. He can't teach his children the true morality or justify himself to others or forgive others.

2. The Publicity Argument

we may ask what proof there is for the view of psychological egoism. One such argument is the _____

argument from self-satisfaction

this argument against ethical egoism is that it is an absolute moral system that not only permits egoistic behavior but also demands it. Helping others at one's own expense is not only not required but also morally wrong. Whenever I do not have good evidence that my helping you will end up to my advantage, I must refrain from helping you. If I can save the whole of Europe and Africa from destruction by pressing a button, then as long as there is nothing for me to gain by it, it is wrong for me to press that button. The Good Samaritan was, by this logic, morally wrong in helping the injured victim and not collecting payment for his troubles. It is certainly hard to see why the egoist should be concerned about environmental matters if he or she is profiting from polluting the environment. Suppose, for example, that the egoist gains 40 units of pleasure in producing chemical solvent. This causes pollution that in turn causes others 1,000 units of suffering; the egoist himself, though, experiences only 10 units of suffering. Thus, according to an agent-maximizing calculus, he is morally obligated to produce the polluting chemical.

4. The Argument from Counterintuitive Consequences

One argument for ethical egoism follows immediately from the theory of psychological egoism, which we examined in the previous section. If I am psychologically programmed to act only in my own best interest, then I can never be obligated to perform altruistic (that is, selfless) acts toward others. More formally the argument is this: (1) We all always seek to maximize our own self-interest (definition of psychological egoism). (2) If one cannot do an act, one has no obligation to do that act (ought implies can). (3) Altruistic acts involve putting other people's interests ahead of our own (definition of altruism). (4) But, altruism contradicts psychological egoism and so is impossible (by premises 1 and 3). (5) Therefore, altruistic acts are never morally obligatory (by premises 2 and 4).

Argument from Strict Psychological Egoism

the best way to get happiness is to forget it. That is, you'll have a higher probability of attaining happiness if you aim at accomplishing worthy goals that will indirectly bring about happiness: I sought the bird of bliss, she flew away. I sought my neighbor's good, bliss flew my way. Happiness seems to be an elusive goal as long as we desire it alone and for its own sake. It is in the process of reaching other intrinsically worthy goals that happiness comes into being.

As the paradox of hedonism asserts:

4 arguments for ethical egoism

1. The Argument from Strict Psychological Egoism 2. Hobbes's Argument from Predominant Psychological Egoism 3. Smith's Economic Argument 4. Rand's Argument for the Virtue of Selfishness

Brian Medlin argues that ethical egoism cannot be true because it fails to meet a necessary condition of morality—namely, being a guide to action. He claims that it would be like advising people to do inconsistent things based on incompatible desires. His argument goes like this: (1) Moral principles must be universal and categorical. (2) I must universalize my egoist desire to come out on top over Tom, Dick, and Harry. (3) But, I must also prescribe Tom's egoist desire to come out on top over Dick, Harry, and me (and so on). (4) Therefore, I have prescribed incompatible outcomes and have not provided a way of adjudicating conflicts of desire. In effect, I have said nothing. The proper response to this is that of Jesse Kalin, who argues that we can separate our beliefs about ethical situations from our desires. He likens the situation to a competitive sports event in which you believe that your opponent has a right to try to win as much as you, but you desire that you, not he, will in fact win. An even better example is that of the chess game in which you recognize that your opponent ought to move her bishop to prepare for checkmate, but you hope she won't see the move. Belief that A ought to do Y does not commit you to wanting A to do Y.

1. The Inconsistent Outcomes Argument

Could the egoist have friends? If limited friendship is possible, could he or she ever be in love or experience deep friendship? Suppose the egoist discovers that in the pursuit of the happiness goal, deep friendship is in her best interest. Can she become a friend? What is necessary to establish deep friendship? A true friend is one who is not always preoccupied about his or her own interest in the relationship but who forgets about herself altogether, at least sometimes, to serve or enhance the other person's interest. "Love seeks not its own." It is an altruistic disposition, the very opposite of egoism. And, yet we recognize that it is in our self-interest to have friends and loving relations, without which life lacks the highest joy and meaning. Thus, the paradox of ethical egoism is that to reach the goal of egoism one must give up egoism and become (to some extent) an altruist, the very antithesis of egoism. We may once again appeal to a level distinction. On the highest, reflective level, I conclude that I want to be happy. But, I also conclude that the best way to find happiness is to have friends and good relations in a community where we all act justly and lovingly. Because having friends and acting justly requires having dispositions to act justly and altruistically, I determine that on a lower, or first order, level I must live justly and altruistically rather than egoistically.

3. The Paradox of Ethical Egoism

problem with ethical egoism is that there is no obligation to preserve scarce natural resources for future generations. "Why should I do anything for posterity?" the egoist asks. "What has posterity ever done for me?" The egoist gains nothing by preserving natural resources for future generations that do not yet exist and thus can give no benefit to the egoist. Garrett Hardin tells the story of how he spent $1 to plant a redwood seedling that would take 2,000 years to reach its full economic value of $14,000. He confesses that, as an "economic man," he was being stupid in planting it, but he did so anyway. "It is most unlikely that any of my direct descendants will get [the value of the tree]. The most I can hope for is that an anonymous posterity will benefit by my act.... Why bother?" His answer is an admission of the failure of egoistic and economic reasoning—or of his own rationality. He writes, "I am beginning to suspect that rationality—as we now conceive it—may be insufficient to secure the end we desire, namely, taking care of the interests of posterity."But most of us do find it intuitively obvious that we have obligations to future people, even if they cannot reciprocate. If this is so, ethical egoism cannot be a sufficient ethical theory. It may be part of a larger theory, but it must be supplemented by other theories. In conclusion, we see that ethical egoism has a number of serious problems. It cannot consistently publicize itself, nor often argue its case. It tends toward solipsism and the exclusion of many of the deepest human values such as love and deep friendship. It violates the principle of fairness, and, most of all, it entails an absolute prohibition on altruistic behavior, which we intuitively sense as morally required (or at least permissible).

5. The Problem of Future Generations

"the achievement of his own happiness is mans highest moral purpose"

Ayn Rand

____ and _____ illustrate this point about reciprocal altruism through the system of distributing socially beneficial rewards and punishments. They take the case of the ____ who spends an enormous amount of time hunting at great risk to himself but distributes food to the entire group, hunters and nonhunters alike. This seemingly altruistic, group-enhancing behavior, it turns out, is rewarded by the group: It turns out that women think that good hunters are sexy and have more children with them, both in and out of marriage. Good hunters also enjoy a high status among men, which leads to additional benefits. Finally, individuals do not share meat the way Mr. Rogers and Barney and Dinosaur would, out of the goodness of their heart. Refusing to share is a serious breach of etiquette that provokes punishment. In this way sharing merges with taking. These new discoveries make you feel better, because the apparently altruistic behavior of sharing meat that would have been difficult to explain now seems to fit comfortably within the framework of individual selection theory. So, although hunting might at first sight appear an example of pure altruism, the rule of reciprocity comes into play, rewarding the hunter for his sacrifice and contribution to the group. Sober and Wilson call activities like hunting, which increase the relative fitness of the hunter, primary behavior, and the rewards and punishment that others confer on the hunters, secondary behavior. "By itself, the primary behavior increases the fitness of the group and decreases the relative fitness of the hunters within the group. But the secondary behaviors offset the hunters' sacrifice and promote altruistic behavior, so that they may be called the amplification of altruism." This primitive notion of reciprocity seems to be necessary in a world like ours. One good deed deserves another, and similarly, one bad deed deserves another. Reciprocity is the basis of desert—good deeds should be ____ and bad deeds ____. We are grateful for favors rendered and thereby have an impulse to return the favor; we resent harmful deeds and seek to pay the culprit back in kind ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life").

Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson hunter rewarded punished

-S1. For any act A, everyone does A in order to obtain satisfaction. Satisfaction is the goal. From this interpretation, it may be inferred that we all always act in such a way as to maximize our own self-interest—self-interest being interpreted in terms of satisfaction of wants. Enlarged, this first interpretation reads as follows: We all want to be happy—to find satisfaction in life—and everything that we do we consciously do toward that end. -S2. We all do the act that we most want to do, and as a consequence, we are satisfied by the success of carrying out the act. The first interpretation (S1) reflects the view of psychological egoism, the second (S2) does not. S3. We always try to do what we most want to do and, as a consequence of success in carrying out the act, experience satisfaction. S3 takes weakness of will into account and so seems closer to the truth. It also seems better for the following reason: We usually are not conscious of any concern for satisfaction when we seek some goal, but satisfaction seems to follow naturally on accomplishing any task. When I reach out to grab a child who is about to be hit by a car, pulling her back from danger, I feel satisfaction at my success, but I didn't save her to feel satisfied. To conclude that, because I feel satisfaction after saving her, I must have had satisfaction as my purpose is to confuse a consequence of an act with a purpose. This is as fallacious as reasoning that because a car constantly consumes gasoline during driving the purpose of such driving is to consume gasoline. In short, as we push for greater clarity in the psychological egoist's position, the initial argument from self-satisfaction disappears.

Is S true? Well, at first sight it seems ambiguous. On the one hand, it might mean this:

Imagine a person, Jones, who is, first of all, devoid of intellectual curiosity. He has no desire to acquire any kind of knowledge for its own sake, and thus is utterly indifferent to questions of science, mathematics, and philosophy. Imagine further that the beauties of nature leave Jones cold: he is unimpressed by the autumn foliage, the snow-capped mountains, and the rolling oceans. Long walks in the country on spring mornings and skiing forays in the winter are to him equally a bore. Moreover, let us suppose that Jones can find no appeal in art. Novels are dull, poetry a pain, paintings nonsense and music just noise. Suppose further that Jones has neither the participant's nor the spectator's passion for baseball, football, tennis, or any other sport. Swimming to him is a cruel aquatic form of calisthenics, the sun only a cause of sunburn. Dancing is coeducational idiocy, conversation a waste of time, the other sex an unappealing mystery. Politics is a fraud, religion mere superstition; and the misery of millions of underprivileged human beings is nothing to be concerned with or excited about. Suppose finally that Jones has no talent for any kind of handicraft, industry, or commerce, and that he does not regret that fact. What then is Jones interested in? He must desire something. To be sure, he does. Jones has an overwhelming passion for, a complete preoccupation with, his own happiness. The one exclusive desire of his life is to be happy. It takes little imagination at this point to see that Jones's one desire is bound to be frustrated. --The paradox of hedonism seems to suggest that psychological egoism has severe problems.

Joel Feinberg puts the paradox of hedonism this way:

_________, the Protestant reformer, once said that humanity is like a man who, when mounting a horse, always falls off on the opposite side, especially when he tries to overcompensate for his previous exaggerations. So it is with ethical egoism. Trying to compensate for an irrational, guilt-ridden, Sucker altruism of the morality of self-effacement, it falls off the horse on the other side, embracing a Cheater's preoccupation with self-exaltation that robs the self of the deepest joys in life. Only the person who mounts properly, avoiding both extremes, is likely to ride the horse of happiness to its goal.

Martin Luther

Adam Smith defended an egoistic approach toward morality based on the economic benefits that this would bring to society. According to Smith, individual self-interest in a competitive marketplace produces a state of optimal goodness for society at large. Competition, he argues, causes each individual to produce a better product and sell it at a lower price than competitors. For example, if I'm a car manufacturer and hope to survive against the competition, I will need to find ways of making my car better and selling it at a cheaper price in an effort to get more customers. I gain but so too does the customer. Thus, my self interest leads to the best overall situation for society. Smith picturesquely describes this benefit as the result of an "invisible hand," which almost magically directs the economy when we pursue our self-interest. The goal of this theory is social benefit, but it places its faith in an invisible hand inherent in the free enterprise system that guides enlightened self-interest to reach that goal. We might say that it is a two-tier system: On the highest level, it is utilitarian, but on a lower level of day-to-day action, it is practical egoism. Tier 2: General goal: social utility Tier 1: Individual motivation: egoistic The economic argument as a two-tier system suggests that we not worry about the social good but only about our own good, and in that way we will attain the highest social good possible. There may be some truth in such a two-tier system. But, first, it is unclear whether you can transpose the methods of economics (which are debatable) into the realm of personal relations, which may have a logic that differs from that of economic relations. The best way to maximize utility in an ethical sense may be to give one's life for others rather than kill another person, as an egoist might maintain.

Smith's Economic Argument

Ethical egoism is the moral view that everyone ought always to do those acts that will best serve his or her own best self-interest. That is, morally right actions are those that maximize the best interest of oneself, even when it conflicts with the interests of others. It's important to recognize that the moral theory of ethical egoism does not maintain that every person ought to serve the best interests of me specifically (or the speaker). We could imagine, for example, that a tyrannical king might think that moral actions are those which serve specifically the king's best interest. The position of ethical egoism is more universal than that. It urges everyone to maximize his or her best interests. John, Mary, Bill, and Sue should each act in ways that serve their own interests. We next consider four common arguments in defense of ethical egoism.

ethical egoism

holds that everyone ought always to do those acts that will best serve his or where own best self interest. Whereas psychological egoism is a theory about how we do behave as human beings, ethical egoism is a theory about how we ought to behave.

ethical egoism

Morality—that is, successful morality—can be seen as an _______ strategy for gene replication. That is, groups who adopted morality increased their chances of surviving, and those that didn't eventually died out. Here's a good example from the animal world. ____ are afflicted with life-endangering parasites. Because they lack limbs to enable them to pick the parasites off their heads, they—like much of the animal kingdom depend on the ritual of mutual grooming. It turns out that nature has evolved two basic types of birds in this regard: ________________ and ______________. The former type of bird Dawkins calls "____" and the latter "_____." Suckers will do fairly well, but Cheaters will not survive for lack of cooperation. However, in a Sucker population in which a mutant Cheater arises, the Cheater will prosper, and the Cheater-gene type will multiply. As the Suckers are exploited, they will gradually die out. But, if and when they become too few to groom the Cheaters, the Cheaters will start to die off too and eventually become extinct. Why don't birds all die off, then? Well, somehow nature has come up with a third type, call them "_____." _____ groom only those who reciprocate in grooming them. They groom one another and Suckers, but not Cheaters. In fact, once caught, a Cheater is marked forever. There is no forgiveness. It turns out then that unless there are a lot of Suckers around, Cheaters have a hard time of it—harder even than Suckers. However, it is the Grudgers that prosper. Unlike Suckers, they don't waste time messing with unappreciative Cheaters, so they are not exploited and have ample energy to gather food and build better nests for their loved ones. The point of the bird example is this: Showing reciprocal altruism to others (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours) is a good strategy for survival. Pure altruism is a failure, as is pure egoism.

evolutionary birds those who are disposed to groom anyone and those who refuse to groom anyone but others who present themselves for grooming. Suckers Cheaters Grudgers Grudgers

the position that we always do that act that we perceive to be in our own best self interest. this view claims to be a description of human nature.

psychological egoism

the nestle story raises a question about whether ___ is the driving force behind all human conduct

selfishness

_____ which theorizes that social structures and behavioral patterns, including morality, have a biological base explained by evolutionary theory. Nineteenth-century social Darwinism applied the notion of "survival of the fittest" to virtually all aspects of social life, often leading to the position that "might makes right": The most powerful force in society is the one that dominates and makes all the rules. This in turn justified imperialistic rule of preindustrial societies around the globe. This philosophy lent itself to a promotion of ruthless egoism: This is nature's law, "nature red in tooth and claw." In more recent times, though, animal scientists have argued for a more gentle view of the animal kingdom in which animals often survive by cooperating with other members of their species—a social behavior that is at least as important as competition. The goal for these animals is not so much survival for them individually but survival of their genes. Indeed, in his book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins argues that behavior is determined evolutionarily by strategies set to replicate our genes. This is not done consciously, of course, but by the invisible hand that drives consciousness. We are essentially gene-perpetuating machines.

sociobiology

The thesis now states that sometimes we are self-deceived about our motivation, but whenever we overcome self-deception and really look deep into our motivational schemes, we find an essential selfishness. One problem with it is that it seems to be an unfalsifiable dogma, for what evidence could ever count against it? Suppose you look within your motivational structure and do not find a predominant egoistic motive. What does the egoist say to this? The egoist responds that you just haven't looked deep enough. But how, you may wonder, do you know when you have looked deep enough? The egoist answers: When you discover the selfish motive.

the argument for self deception