“Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels : Summary Chapter 6

For a moment in “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels it seemed as though ethical and psychological egoism were very much the same idea, except for the fact that they dealt with differing stages of the process of recognizing selfish needs. Although they are different theories, it is important to point out that neither exclude the realization of one’s selfish needs first and foremost and both seem to see this as a natural thing, even if we recognize our moral duty. The idea of ethical egoism goes against much of what many people believe—especially in a country where we like to think of ourselves as helpful and kind. According to ethical egoism, our only duty is to take care of ourselves. Many would likely cringe at the idea since it sounds rather crass, but as the author points out, it truly is difficult to argue if the argument made is based on logical and rational statements rather than brash appeals to emotion. One of the most compelling arguments in favor of ethical egoism is the hardest to think about, especially in our society. It is the fact that altruism is self-defeating. This goes against the common notion that helping others is good for both the self (in terms of ideas about self-worth, for example) as well as for the community as a whole. When one really considers this argument, however, there truly are problems with the idea. We cannot know the needs of others as well as we know our own, we do not wish to tread on the privacy of others, and also, as far as charity goes, this robs those on the receiving end of their dignity. These could all be argued, of course, but they are sound and worth considering. The comments of Ann Rand are especially interesting as they more clearly state the ideas behind ethical egoism more clearly than bland theory. I was especially moved by the argument that many of the “duties” that we consider to be moral are in fact actually serving our own selfish interests such as not lying, not keeping promises, and not hurting others.

 

“Elements of Moral Philosophy” Chapter 7

After reading the chapters in “Elements of Moral Philosophy” that come before this one, Bentham’s ideas about utility and how we choose the best possible outcome for all involved seems incredibly optimistic and does not appear to take into account the issues brought forth by psychological or ethical egoism. If the best course of action, morally speaking, is to do what would promote the greatest amount of happiness for all involved, then why does it seem as though it is a counterintuitive idea, especially in modern society? While there are no references to religious morality, this is still a problematic and potentially flawed theory. Even though it may promote the ideals put forth by social reformers, it seems hopelessly outdated and unrealistic. One simply cannot ignore those questions about altruism versus self-interested behavior discussed previously. Furthermore, the concept of utilitarianism has several other issues embedded in it—one of which is exposed by the conversation in the chapter about the ethics of euthanasia. I have to wonder how the “good of society” by being cleansed of undesirables fits into the concept of the ideas put forth by ethical egoism, namely that harming others is not exactly the most beneficial decision in terms of self-interest and preservation. However, this aside one cannot help but feel that the “God” question comes up almost without thinking about it and it is clear that the pattern of basing morality on religious doctrine is indeed implicit in many decisions and feelings we have, even if we are not particularly religious. Overall, especially with the examples provided in this chapter, this seems to be a limiting theory and does not take into account the potential for self interest. It aims towards the good of the whole, not of the individual and in this sense it also not as realistic as the other theories. It may make sense in some skewed evolutionary sense it goes against general sentiment about life and death.

 

“Elements of Moral Philosophy” Summary of Chapter 12

Although this chapter of “Elements of Moral Philosophy” begins with an implicit statement about how those “old” notions about how men versus women think, the author does not recognize that despite modern feminist criticism such as that cited, these stereotypes are still quite present. In fact, I would argue that they are more dominant that feminist assertions that we should be aware that women just think other thoughts, or consider things men may have missed in their thought processes. For instance, turn on a television and nearly ever sitcom features a “manly” man who rejects soft issues and his feelings while the woman is the nurturer and the caretaker at home. Aside from a few variations, this is still the dominant idea, no matter how much we dislike it, and the author fails to recognize this, treating this as though it was a paradigm of the past with no basis in modernity. Aside from that minor argument with the author’s introduction, there are several noteworthy ideas put forth in this chapter. For instance, in Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, we are confronted with “scientific” evidence that the boy has progressed more than the girl. However, as Gilligan’s Objection states, the criteria for having become “developed” is based on what might be a flawed set of ethics and ideals. Who is to say which is more valued in terms of development? Our grounded ideas about what makes someone “sensible and logical” or the more sensitive approach put forth by the female? In reality then, this study of Kohlberg means little, especially if it were taken out of the context of what our society values. It seems quite simple and rational to assume that women are different because of social conditioning. From a young age women are indoctrinated to the social system and are taught to be the nurturers and the objects. Without a specific control study in which both sexes are raised without social influences this is hardly provable.

 

“Elements of Moral Philosophy” Chapter 14

The author makes quite an understatement when he addresses the problem of choosing between all of the theories regarding ethics and morality. While it has been nearly impossible throughout the text not to side with one over the other, the most important element of the internal debate is that one has learned how to gauge different responses to complex moral questions and consider why they exist. Aside from this more personal sense of exploration, it is key that one of the first suggestions he makes in this last chapter is that a solid theory should keep close the idea of hubris and the place of the human being both in the large scope of history and of nature. When making moral decisions rationality and an understanding of the breadth of the debate is essential. The author brings up the issue of treating people as they deserve to be treated when discussing this. Oddly enough, this idea has not been raised to any great extent throughout the text, but it seems to jibe perfectly with notions of self-interested behavior as well as the less self-interested behavior put forth by utilitarianism. If someone does not deserve to be helped and does not offer a “trade” in terms of their value or contributions, there is no self-interested reason should help them and in general, since they are not the best thing for the happiness of the whole, why bother? While this may seem like a rather cold assessment of personal “duty” in terms of morality, it is both rational and functional and I find it difficult to pass off as immoral, simply on the basis of logic. Furthermore, among all of the discussions presented in this text, the model and list entitled “Right Action as Living” makes the most sense since it integrates nearly all of the theories and remains rooted in rationality. This takes into account notions of what is good for the society, the individual, and can be extended to include debates surrounding justice and ethics.