LESSON 5: SENSES OF THE SELF

Noting once again the difficulty in thinking about ethics, in trying to figure out
for ourselves why we maintain that this is good while that is bad, or this is right while that is
wrong, while also not allowing ourselves to simply be blindly obedient to some authority figure
dictating to use what to think, it is possible for some to take a different approach. It is sometimes
supposed that all the difficulty and complexity will be simplified if one just had a better
understanding of the dynamic that exists between ethics and the person trying to think it. In other
words, all we would need to do is to recognize a better understanding of the self in relation to
ethics. Under this general statement, we can identify three theories: subjectivism, psychological
egoism, and ethical egoism.
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:
1. recognize the problem with taking a subjectivist stance towards ethics;
2. distinguish the irrefutability but also the uselessness of the descriptive ethical theory
called psychological egoism; and
3. assess the challenge to ethics raised by ethical egoism.

DIAGNOSTICS
Instructions: Reflect on yourself and list some of your positive and negative social behaviors.
Below, explain what you have realized about yourself.
POSITIVE NEGATIVE

1. 1.

2. 2.

3. 3.

4. 4.

5. 5.

Self-realization:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
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 of 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.”
“l am entitled to my own opinion.”
“It is good if | say that it is good.”
There is something appealing about these statements because they seem to express a
sense of personal independence that many of us would cherish. 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 statement or 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 investigation
or discussion reveals 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,
is the one who has the best knowledge of the factors that surround her situation and that direct
the decision that has to be made. 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 other people may have something useful to suggest, to instruct, or to
admonish?
“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 the male employees, simply because he is of the Opinion that
women are inferior to men. But, one might ask, 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 own personal consideration of X as good that
makes X good. X is good on the basis of my saying so, and for no other reason.” The problem at
this point surfaces if one were to try to ask further: “But what is my basis for saying X is good?”
And there is no answer. This renders Subjectivism an untenable view for someone who is
interested in ethics. It takes the fact that | 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 | can look toward. We are left with the
absurd situation that in whatever way | end up deciding, | can say that | am right although my
only reason for being able to say so is the fact that | am the one deciding,
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 tries to describe the underlying dynamic
behind all human actions as a matter of a pursuit of self-interest. As a descriptive theory, it does
not direct one to act in any particular way. Instead, it points out that there is, in fact, already a
basis for how one acts. The ego - or self has its desires and interests, and all our actions are
geared toward 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 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 he only helped his friend with her thesis because he is trying
to impress her. Perhaps she helps out with Gawad Kalinga because this is how she relieves her
sense of guilt at being well-off compared to others. The idea here 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. The first is that of simplicity. When an idea is
marked by simplicity, rather than clouded by complexity, it has a unique appeal to it; and this
theory which conveniently identifies a single basis that accounts for all actions would be a good
example of this. 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 that one performs which
are obviously self-serving; and it could very well also be the motivation behind an individual’s
seemingly other directed actions. In fact, it is not only plausible, but also irrefutable.
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 that ultimate
self-centered root no matter how one might try to object. This opens up two questions: first,
“Because we cannot refute it, shall we accept it as true?” and second, “Do we accept the
consequences of this theory?”
The first question asks whether we have to accept the theory because it happens to be
irrefutable. Let us consider this analogy: let us say that is a budding psychology major, and he
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 further insists that everything about B and what he does—his
choice in music, course, and favorite food—is all ultimately rooted in this complex. And a
further insists that this is the case even if B himself does not realize it. Therefore, no matter what
B says, A would be able to brush off any possible objections by B, maybe calling these as
nothing more than denial on B’s part. Nothing that B can say would compel A to change his
stance that it is this complex that drives B to act in the way that he does. In this scenario, A’s
claim is irrefutable. But does B have to accept it?
Similarly, one could maintain, if one really wanted to, that human nature is intrinsically
self-interested, and that human beings could not possibly be benevolent or other-oriented. When
they seem to be so, it is only a matter of pretense, maybe even a matter of fooling oneself. One
could maintain this indefinitely, because any objections to that claim can be easily swept aside
by simply saying that the one objecting is in denial. But must this really be the case?
The second question raised above reminds us of the problematic consequences of
maintaining such a theory. Consider this scenario: One woman spends her money on expensive
clothes and shoes for herself, and another woman donates to charity. In this theory called
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, it could be said that
their actions 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? Let us open up
another problematic consequence; let us move away from the realm of moral judgment and enter
into the realm of moral decision. Now consider the question: How are we supposed to decide on
the right thing to do? Given psychological egoism, the answer simply is: it does not matter. We
only think that we have a choice but actually, in whatever way we end up acting, our minds have
already determined what serves Our interests best, maybe without our even being conscious of it.
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 that all our
actions are already inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that we should
make our own ends, our own interests, as our 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. Actions are
right ones insofar as they would ultimately result in what is best for our own selves. This theory
acknowledges that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there and given that, everyone ought to put his or
her own self at the center. One should consider the self as the priority and not allow any other
concerns, such as the welfare of other people, to deviate or detract from this pursuit. I Now, it is
clear that we have our interests, our desires, and would want them satisfied. The 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 one can read as Plato’s response to the assertion that one should
only care about one’s own interests.
In the Republic, the characters are engaged in a discussion about justice. Socrates gets his
companions in book 1 to first consider the question, “What is justice?” and then later, “Why
should one be just?” In book 2 of the text, the character named Glaucon provides a powerful
restatement of the case for ethical 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 some notion of “justice”).
Glaucon then asks plaintively, would we not also ourselves act with the same impunity if we had
this power to be invisible? To put it simply, if we would never be call to account for our actions,
if we could, “get away with it,” 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, wherein Socrates presents how the good
human life stems from a proper harmony of the parts of the soul. Harmony requires a 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
within the individual. On the other hand, the absence of this internal order harmony means that
one’s desires and appetites run rampant, which then we know would then result in acts of
injustice done by that individual.
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 who,
without self-control or self-possession, is a danger to the rest of society.
Being nothing more than a disordered and nervous jumble of cravings, such a person
would be so obsessed with these longings to bother caring about how this might affect others. So
the status of individual character becomes situated into a larger social and political context, and
the connection can be easily made between one's pursuits of one’s own interest with an abuse of
power that may easily result in the misery of millions.
The question then that we can ask is: seeing this, 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 an innocent call to 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.

CONCLUSION
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, of other people, of other
beings, of our world as a whole. Perhaps we shall find that this really is what the study
of ethics is all about.