Lesson 3: Senses of the Self

It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to tell oneself what
the standards of moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards. In this section, we will
look into three theories about ethics that center on the self: subjectivism, psychological egoism,
and ethical egoism. 

Source: Bulaong, Oscar G, Calano, Mark Joseph T, Lagliva, Albert M, Mariano, Michael

Ner E, Principe, Jesus Deogracias Z. Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation. Manila: Rex
Book Store, Inc., 2018.

Subjectivism
The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the individual thinking person
(the subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations. She is the one who is confronted with the
situation and is burdened with the need to make a decision or judgment. From this point,
subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim that the individual is the sole determinant of what is
morally good or bad, right or wrong. A number of clichés familiar to us would echo this idea:

"No one can tell me what is right and wrong."

"No one knows my situation better than myself."

"I am entitled to my own opinion."

"It is good if I say that it is good."

There is something appealing about these statements because they seem to express a
cherished sense of personal independence. But a close look at these statements may reveal
problems and in seeing these, we see the problems of subjectivism.

"No one can tell me what is right and wrong."

In a sense, there is some validity to this. No one can compel another to accept a certain value
judgment if she herself does not concur with it. However, we know that this statement cannot
be taken as absolute. We realize, in many instances, that we had maintained an idea or an
opinion that further discussion reveals it was actually erroneous. We realize that we can be
mistaken and that we can be corrected by others. Why is this not also possibly applicable
when we are speaking of ethics?

"No one knows my situation better than myself."

Once again, in a sense, there is some validity to this. This particular person who is put in a
certain situation, which calls for a decision, has knowledge of the factors that affect her situation
and decision. But to take this fact as a ground for not listening to others is to have a mentality
that imagines that one's own situation or concern is so personal and unique that there is no way
another person can possibly understand her and give her any meaningful advice. But does not
it make greater sense to recognize the reality that many human experiences are common
and that others may have something useful to suggest?

"I am entitled to my own opinion."

Here, once again, is a valid point that is often misused. Certainly, each person has the right to
believe what she believes and has the right to express this. But this right is often stubbornly
misconstrued as some kind of immunity from criticism and correction. A bigoted racist has an
opinion against anyone who is dark-skinned, an anti-Semite has an opinion against Jews, and a
misogynist has an opinion against women. We realize that these opinions are highly problematic
because there is no basis for considering any of these groups of people as inferior. We would
rightly be indignant about an employer who pays his female employees less than male
employees, simply because he is of the opinion that women are inferior to me. But isn't he
entitled to his own opinion? To insist on one's right in to having opinions whatever these
happen to be is to exhibit a closed-mindedness that rightly invites censure from
someone trying to think more critically about values.

"It is good if I say that it is good."

With this line, we get to the heart of the problem with subjectivism. The statement implies: "It is
my personal consideration of X as good that makes X good. X is good on the basis of my saying
so." The problem now becomes: "What is my basis for saying X is good.?" This renders
subjectivism an untenable view for someone who is interested in ethics. It takes the fact that I
am the subject making the valuation and uses this fact as the very basis for that valuation. But
when "I," as subject, am asking what is right or wrong, good or bad, with subjectivism,
there is no other basis that I can look forward.

Psychological Egoism
Let us consider another cliché. It would go like this: "Human beings are naturally self-
centered, so all our actions are always already motivated by self-interest."

This is the stance taken by psychological egoism, which is a theory that describes the
underlying dynamic behind all human actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to
act in any particular way. Instead, it points out that there is already an underlying basis for
how one acts. The ego or self has its desires and interests, and all our actions are
geared towards satisfying these interests.

This may not seem particularly problematic when we consider many of the actions that we do on
a day-to-day basis. I watch a movie or read a book because I want to, or go for a walk and do
some window shopping in the mall because I enjoy that. I take a certain course in college
because I think it will benefit me, or I join an organization because I will get some good out of it.
We do things in pursuit of our own self-interest all the time.

But what about other types of behavior that we would commonly say are directed toward the
other? Consider, for example, an act of generosity, in which someone helps a friend with her
thesis, rather than play videogames, or someone makes use of her free Saturday helping build
houses for Gawad Kalinga? The psychological egoist would maintain that underlying such
apparently other-directed behavior is a self-serving desire, even if one does not acknowledge
it or is even conscious of it. Perhaps she only helped out with Gawad Kalinga because this is
how she relieves her sense of guilt at being well-off compared to others. The idea is that
whether or not the person admits it, one's actions are ultimately always motivated by self-
serving desire.

This theory has a couple of strong points.

1. The first is the simplicity. When an idea is marked by simplicity, it has a unique appeal to it;
a theory that conveniently identifies a single basis that will somehow account for all actions is a
good example of this.

2. The second is that of plausibility. It is plausible that self-interest is behind a person's actions.
It is clearly the motivation behind many of the actions one perform which are obviously self-
serving; it could very well also be the motivation behind an individual's seemingly other-directed
actions. it is not only plausible, but also irrefutable.

3. Psychological egoism is an irrefutable theory because there is no way to try to answer it

without being confronted by the challenge that, whatever one might say, there is the self-serving
motive at the root of everything. The psychological egoist can and will insist on his stand no
matter how one might objects. This opens up two questions: first, "Because we cannot
refute it, shall we accept it as true?" and "Do we accept the consequences of this
theory?"

Question 1
The first question asks whether we have to accept the theory because it happens to be
irrefutable. Let us consider this analogy: A posits that B has an Oedipal complex and according
to A, this translates into a desire in B to get rid of the father figure. Then, A insists that
everything about B and what he does--his choice in music, course, favorite food--is all ultimately
rooted in this complex. Therefore, no matter what B says, A would be able to insist that even
without his acknowledging it deep down, it is this complex that drives him to act the way he
does. In this scenario, A's claim is irrefutable. But does B have to accept it? Similarly, one could
maintain, if he really wanted to, that human nature is intrinsically self-interested and that human
beings could not possibly be benevolent. When they seem to be so, it is only a matter of
pretense. One could not maintain that but one have to?

Question 2
The second point has to do with the problematic consequences of this theory. Consider this
scenario: One woman spends her money on expensive clothes, and another woman donates to
charity. In terms of psychological egoism, they are both simply and equally doing what is self-
serving for themselves. Because they both are simply fulfilling what would serve them, they are
of equal moral worth. In judging these persons and these actions, we can ask ourselves: Do we
want to give up on our moral intuition concerning the goodness and value of generosity versus
the wrongness of selfishness just for the sake of this theory? Most significantly, turning to the
next consequence when we move from moral judgment to moral decision, the question is: How
then are we supposed to decide? Given psychological egoism, it does not matter. We
only think that we have a choice but actually whatever way that we end up acting, our minds
have actually already determined what serves our interests best. 

So psychological egoism, when we look at its consequences, leads us to a cynical view of

humanity, to a gloomy description of human nature, and finally to a useless theory for
someone who is concerned with asking herself what is the right thing to do. This is
because it ends up nullifying the possibility of any normative ethics in its view of the already-
determined human being.

Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that it does not suppose all our actions are
already inevitably self-serving, instead, ethical egoism prescribes that we should make our
own ends, our own interests, as the single overriding concern. We may act in a way that is
beneficial to others, but we should do that only if it ultimately benefits us. This theory
acknowledges that it is a dog-at-dog world out there and given that, everyone ought to put
herself at the center. One should consider herself as the priority and not allow any other
concerns, such as the welfare of other people, to detract from this pursuit.

It is clear that we have our interests and desires, and would want them satisfied. Thus, this
question can be asked: Why should I have any concern about the interests of others? In a
sense, this question challenges in a fundamental way the idea of not just a study of ethics, but
also the effort of being ethical: Why not just look after one's own self? To examine ethical
egoism, we will take a look into Plato's Republic, which is Plato's response to the assertion that
one should only care about one's own interests.

The Myth of Gyges in Plato's Republic (359c-360d)

In the Republic, the characters are engaged in a discussion about justice. Socrates gets his
companions to first consider the question, "What is justice?" and later, "Why should one be
just?" In Book 2 of the text, the character named Glaucon provides a powerful restatement of
the case for egoism by way of a myth. The myth describes a man, a figure named Gyges who
obtains the power to make himself invisible at will and how he quickly learns how to use this
power for his own desires rather than for any notion of "justice." Glaucon then asks plaintively,
would not we ourselves act with impunity if we had this power to be invisible? To put it simply, if
we would never be called in order to account for our actions, perhaps we, too, would just
choose to do whatever we want. It seems, Glaucon concludes, that if we are to be honest with
ourselves, we would admit that what we really care for is our own self-interest rather than some
notion of justice or moral goodness.

It will take Socrates the rest of the ten books of the Republic to try to answer this most important
question on whether the pursuit of ethics is worthwhile. Does it make sense to be ethical? The
beginning of Socrates's answer can be found in Book 4, in which Socrates presents how the
good human life stems from a proper harmony of the parts of the soul. Harmony requires certain
ordering, a hierarchical system in which reason as the "highest" part is in charge dutifully
followed by the "lower" parts of the soul of will and appetite. The presence of such an
internal ordering that one consciously strives to accomplish is what it means for justice to be
present in the individual. On the other hand, the absence of order or the lack of harmony, with
desires and appetites running rampant, results in acts of injustice. This point is developed in
Book 9 with the portrayal of the tyrant. The presence of internal disorder in a person placed in
power turns the seemingly pleasant prospect of doing whatever one wants--of acting with
impunity--into a terrifying portrait of a character without self-control or self-possession. Being
nothing more than a disordered and nervous jumble of cravings, such a person would be so
obsessed with these longings than to bother caring about how this might affect others. Situating
this story into a larger social and political context, the connection can be made between one's
pursuit of one's own interest with abuse of power that may easily result in the misery of
millions. The question then that we can ask is: Do we still want to say, in the face of what
history has shown us of tyrants and dictators, that to act with impunity is desirable?

This is what ethical egoism ultimately translates into--not just some pleasant pursuit of one's
own desires, but the imposition of a will to power that is potentially destructive of both the
self and of others. One can take on this view, if one wishes, but it is also possible to wonder
whether there is a way of recognizing our being in the world with others, of thinking of our own
well-being concomitantly with the well-being of others. Perhaps this is what the study of ethics is
all about. 

Later we shall see more nuanced ways of thinking about happiness--our own and that of
others--in both Utilitarianism and in the Virtue Ethics of Aristotle.