|
|
 Acne (1,500)
Addictions (1,500)
Advice (1,500)
Allergies (1,092)
Alternative Medicine (1,500)
Anti Aging (1,500)
Breakup (1,500)
Cancer (1,499)
Dental Care (1,500)
Disabilities (1,500)
Divorce (1,500)
Elderly Care (1,498)
Goal Setting (1,500)
Hair Loss (1,500)
Health and Safety (1,497)
Hearing (1,500)
Law of Attraction (1,499)
Marriage (1,500)
Medicine (1,497)
Meditation (1,499)
Men's Health (1,500)
Mental Health (1,500)
Motivational (1,500)
Nutrition (1,495)
Personal Injury (1,499)
Plastic Surgeries (1,500)
Pregnancy (1,496)
Psychology (1,500)
Public Speaking (1,500)
Quit Smoking (1,500)
Religion (1,499)
Self Help (1,500)
Skin Care (1,500)
Sleep (1,500)
Stress Management (1,500)
Teenagers (1,492)
Time Management (1,500)
Weddings (1,500)
Wellness (1,500)
Women's Health (1,500)
Women's Issues (1,500)
|
Let’s regard an intentionally oversimplified example of how the psychological egoism works in life.
Say a person wants to steal a gum from a supermarket. Even though he probably has at least several options, let's reduce them to just two ones: STEAL OR NOT STEAL the gum obsessed. If he jumps at the bait, he will be enjoying a good gum free. If he doesn't, he will taste that gum, but he will enjoy a clean conscience. Realizing all the possible consequences of stealing the gum, he would probably find it easier choosing not to steal the gum, because it is in his best interest. He knows that all the negative consequences probably would darken the pleasure he gets from enjoying the gum. So, is it possible, in this case, to decide to take the action that is not based just on his own self-interests?
Let's concede for a moment that we managed somehow to reduce all the negative consequences possible. Noone will catch him and penalize and he would not break law. Let's concede that the only negative result would be the financial damage made to the owner of the supermarket where he stole. So now he has two options: 1) steal that gum and get pleasure enjoying it while causing a financial damage to the one from whom he stole, or 2) or resist the temptation to steal and not taste the gum, but cause no financial damage to the supermarket owner. Would deciding to resist temptation and not to steal, in this case, be a self-denying, altruistic decision that proves psychological egoism to be wrong? Doubtfully!
Why would he resist the temptation to steal the gum? - Because he cannot cause a financial damage to another person. Why would he not want to cause a financial damage to someone he has even never seen? - Because of the fact he would feel guilty if he dare. Why would he feel this way? - Because he takes cares about the other person’s feelings. Why does he take care about that person? - Because it makes him feel good caring about the other person. So, he decides not to lurk the gum because this way he avoids any guilt (pain) and feels good caring about the other (pleasure.) While it could be argued that I am creating the motives of our potential thief, I invite anyone to find any reason different from that of aiming to feel good. Thus, it is better for him not to steal the gum, and I can see no other reasons for him to resist the temptation and not to steal the gum except if that it somehow turns to be in his best interest.
|
|
|
