Platos Republic

Dialogue
Characters:
1. Thrasymachus: justice
is the will of the
stronger (might makes
right)
2. Glaucon: justice is a
necessary evil, a
compromise we make
because of our inability
to do what we wish we
could (he doesnt really
mean this. . . )
3. Socrates: Justice is
harmony (within the
society, within the soul)
Plato: Myth of Gyges Ring
Glaucon proposes a theory of
justice, and of human nature, and
tries to support his ideas with a
story.
Story: Gyges finds a magic ring that
enables him to turn invisible at will.
The power offered by the ring
corrupts him, however, and he
begins to act unjustly.

What would you do with a ring that
allowed you to become invisible at
will?
What would anyone do?
What does this tell us about human
nature, and the nature of morality and
justice?
We are good not because we value it
for its own sake, but from our inability
to act as we wish, without
punishment
If this self-restraint wasnt necessary,
we wouldnt exercise it.
It is in our self interest to be
good.
When its not in our self-interest
to be good, then well be bad.

Motivations
Altruism: acting in the interest of others
(or, foregoing ones own benefit for the
sake of others)

Egoism: acting in ones own interest (even
at the possible expense of others)


Psychological egoism: everyone always acts
from self-interest.
Implications for morality:

1.) Everyone always acts from self-interest (PE).
2.)If one cant do something, one is not obligated
to do it (ought implies can).
3.) Altruism requires putting others interests
ahead of our own.
4.) Altruism is therefore impossible (1, 3)
5.) Altruism is therefore never required (2,4)

Why would someone believe we always act from self-
interest?

Perhaps because we can explain even seemingly
charitable behavior in terms of the agents own
interests.

Because we can point to ways in which allegedly
altruistic acts somehow serve the interests of the
agents, we assume thats their motive for doing it.

Summary (so far)
Fact: people act for the sake of self-
interest, and any action can be explained
in terms of self-interest.

Explanatory theory: all people necessarily
(and exclusively) act from self-interest.

Question: Is this explanatory theory
(psychological egoism) the only, or best,
way to explain the facts?
Problem: Post Hoc Fallacy?

Egoistic explanations are often cases of the post hoc
ergo propter hoc fallacy (after the fact, therefore because
of the fact).
Ex: commuting burning gas
Burning gas is the consequence of commuting, but not the
*reason* for it.

Perhaps people feel good when they help someone else,
but is that reason to believe that feeling good was the
reason for doing it? Might it not just be a happy
coincidence?
Ex:
Action Goal Result
Help friend Help friend Feel happy
v.
Help friend Feel happy feel happy

Problem: unfalsifiability?
An essential feature of any explanation is
testability, but what could ever count as a
counter-example to psychological egoism?
Every action can be explained by appealing to
self-interest, even if this requires that we
appeal to unconscious motivations.
Unconscious motivations cant be falsified
but nor can they be verified!

Problem: defining self-interest
Humans always act from self-interest.
What does that mean?

1. Humans always promote their own
interests at the expense of others.
Is this a threat to altruism?
Yes.
Is this true?
No!

2. Humans always do what is best for
themselves.
Is this a threat to altruism?
Yes.
Is this true?
No!

3.Humans always do what they perceive is
best for themselves.
Is this a threat to altruism?
Yes.
Is this true?
No. I know I shouldnt do this, but. . . . I know Im
going to regret this, but. . .
One final possibility
In assessing whether an
action is self-interested, the
issue is not whether the
action is based on a desire;
the issue is what kind of
desire it is based on. If what
you want is to help someone
else, then your motive is
altruistic, not self-interested.
(James Rachels)
4) We always do what we want most to do, all
things considered.
EX: complying with criminal demands isnt
something that we want to do, but we do
want to survive . . .
But, what is the evidence that we always
do what we most want to do?
PE: The fact that you performed the
action. If you did it, whatever it is, that
was the action you most wanted to do.
Isnt this circular?
We always do what we most want to do.
What we most want to do: whatever it is
that we actually do (otherwise, we would
have done something else).
We always do whatever it is that we
actually do. (?!)
[or: We do what we do.]
Is this true?
Absolutely! Its trivially true, but explains
nothing. If everything is self-interested,
what does self-interest even mean?
Is this a threat to altruism?
No, by virtue of its lack of meaning.
PEs Dilemma:
Either, self-interest means something quite specific and
clear (e.g., promoting your own interest at the expense
of others)in which case its not obviously true that
everyone always acts from self-interest.

Or, self-interest means something vague and
comprehensive (e.g., acting for a reason)in which case
PE ceases to actually tell us anything interesting about
human behavior.

Neither is good news for PE. . . .
Conclusion: its possible that our all our motivations are
self-interest (somehow defined). But, is it plausible?
What seems most likely?