Are we as human beings always driven by psychological
egoism? In order to answer this question we must first understand what
psychological egoism is. Psychological egoism is a term used to describe the
idea that people are only interested in what benefits them as an individual
(Section 12-3b). This idea was brought forth by Jeremy Bentham, who thought
this was the natural way for human beings to behave (Section 12-3b). Bentham
thought that if a person’s selfishness was used as a positive force for the
betterment of a society, a truly better world would be produced.
I feel Bentham was a
bit quick in assuming that people are always out to benefit themselves. I
believe that there is more that goes in to a person’s decision making process
than simply if it benefits them or not. I do not believe that people are so
primal that we innately seek out only the things that please us and refrain
from those things that cause us pain. In a general sense, we do consider our
own happiness an ultimate goal in life; however, that is not to say that we
consider nothing else but achieving our own happiness.
As human beings we are faced daily with decisions that
affect our own welfare and often weigh the pros and cons of each answer to the
situation before making the decision. For example, the following photo went
viral during the debates of whether or not to raise the minimum wage to fifteen
dollars per hour.
Assuming we were to take this photo at face value, if the
minimum wage were raised to fifteen dollars per hour and assuming no raise
occurred for people working as EMT’s, why would anyone want to work as an EMT?
What benefit would it give them? Why work long, physically demanding hours for
fifteen dollars an hour in an extremely risky job environment when you can make
the same working in a fast food restaurant? If we are to believe that human
beings are always out to benefit only themselves, in this scenario we would be
left with no EMT’s. Thankfully however, people do not always consider only
their own personal welfare but also the welfare of others, which is why we have
people willing to risk their own safety and well-being in order to help others.
In this example, we can clearly see that people are not
always driven by psychological egoism, as Bentham believed. Instead there is
something else inside of most of us that drives us to take into consideration
the needs of other people as well as our own. Without this additional driving
force, we would live in a very different world. A world where everyone was only
interested in doing whatever was most beneficial to them, no matter what the cost to
others. Thankfully, this alternative driving force to psychological egoism
balances us and prevents us from slipping into what would otherwise be a
potentially cruel and dark world rather than the ideal world Bentham hoped to create.
Word count: 505
Dibs
ReplyDeleteDibs
ReplyDeleteDibs
ReplyDeleteTotal number of words in the post: 505
Spelling errors: He did not have spelling errors on his post.
Grammatical errors: Student had a few of run-on sentence. He need it to put comma.
Lack of clarity: No, I feel that the student was clear enough with his response and comments that he provide it. I was able to understand everything.
Organization of ideas: organization of ideas was good. The question was answer, opinion was provide and their was examples.
Did the author answer their question? Yes, the author answer the question.
Did the author provide a concrete example that clearly illustrates their main point? Yes, author provide examples that clearly illustrates their main point.
How does the author’s concrete example illustrate or not illustrate their main point? The author illuestrate their main point by provide a picture with his example for we can understand more. The example was about wheather or not raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars per hour. That is an example of decision making.
Do you agree or disagree with the author’s answer and why? I agree with the author because everyday we face" with decisions that affect our own welfare and often weigh the pros and cons os each answer to the situation before making the decision."
What is a concrete example that clearly illustrates why you agree or disagree with the author?
The concrete example that clearly illustrates why I agree with the author was whether we should raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars per hour.
What is your explanation of how your concrete example clearly illustrates your reason for why you agree or disagree with the author?
This example illustrastes my reason for why I agree with the author. It is because others do harder jobs, put their lifes in dangerous, etc and they get paid $15+ and others do not do that. I believe they shouldn't raise minimum wage to $15 per hour because how are you going to paid someone who is just flipping burgers at McDonald $15 per hour for just doing that?
I did not agree with my peer review for several reasons. First of all, I wish they would have put specific examples of the run-on sentences that they found so that I may make the corrections for next time. Secondly, the author states that my concrete example was not about whether or not to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. It was actually about how people choose to put themselves into potentially dangerous situations, like EMT's, without regards to themselves. Essentially, it was an example of how people make choices, such as which career to go into, based on something other than psychological egoism. I feel that my peer did not understand my post and consequently cannot agree with me because we are talking about two different subjects. I know this because of the explanation my peer gives about why they agree with me. They state that "I believe they shouldn't raise minimum wage to $15 per hour because how are you going to paid someone who is just flipping burgers at McDonald $15 per hour for just doing that?". In my last paragraph where I explained how my example illustrated my point you can see a vast difference between what I am saying and what my peer seems to have taken my example to mean. In the end, I am unable to agree with my peer review because I do not feel that my peer understood my post enough to actually agree with it as they said they do.
ReplyDeletePeer Response Comments by- Polarbearz123
ReplyDeleteTotal number of words in the post: 504
Spelling errors: In the second paragraph, second sentence in the author says, (I believe that there is more that goes in to a person’s decision making) “into” is one word and needs to be put together in this sentence.
Grammatical errors: - In the first paragraph the fourth sentence sounds a little funny. (This idea was brought forth by Jeremy Bentham, who thought this was the natural way for human beings to behave.) I think revising this sentence would help make it sound better. I would state it as “Jeremy Bentham was the man who brought forth the idea and thought egoism was the natural was for human beings to behave.”
Lack of clarity: Clarity was very good. I understood everything the author was saying and wanted to get across.
Organization of ideas: I think the author’s organization of their ideas was displayed well and correctly.
Did the author answer their question? Yes the author did answer the question that was asked. The question asked was “Are we as human beings always driven by psychological egoism?” The author in many sentences, not in one particular sentence, answered this question. The author states, “I do not believe people are so primal that we innately seek out only the things that please us and refrain from those things that cause us pain.” The author also says, “I believe that there is more that goes into a person’s decision making process than simply if it benefits them or not.” These two sentences answer the author’s question.
Did the author provide a concrete example that clearly illustrates their main point? Yes the author did provide a concrete example to their question that illustrates their main point.
How does the author’s concrete example illustrate or not illustrate their main point? The example provides a picture of a fast food worker and an EMT with the caption stating “$15 per hour because we are the same.” The author then states that EMT’s would not continue with their jobs if the minimum wages were raised because it is a much more physically demanding job than working at a fast food joint, but since some people do not live the egoism way, these people see that helping others is more important that the amount of money they make or compared to other jobs. I think this example is a very good choice. It helps illustrate very well how egoism is not the way people chose to live.
Do you agree or disagree with the author’s answer and why? I agree with the authors answer because I myself focus on other peoples happiness and not just my own.
What is a concrete example that clearly illustrates why you agree or disagree with the author? I personally find more joy in giving to others whether it is helping someone out by giving them a ride, providing dinner for a family that has suffered a death, or even a gift for someone because you are thinking about them. All these different scenarios are an opportunity for me to make someone feel special or an opportunity for me to take some of the burden off of someone’s shoulders. It brings me more happiness to do them than the hassle of the time it takes to the tasks. I agree with the author that there is more that goes into how people come to making decisions than only what is best for them and only them.
What is your explanation of how your concrete example clearly illustrates your reason for why you agree or disagree with the author? I agree with what the author says that there is more to people than just their own personally wants in life. Helping others is more important to some than making more money.
Peer Response Comments by- Polarbearz123
ReplyDeleteTotal number of words in the post: 504
Spelling errors: In the second paragraph, second sentence in the author says, (I believe that there is more that goes in to a person’s decision making) “into” is one word and needs to be put together in this sentence.
Grammatical errors: - In the first paragraph the fourth sentence sounds a little funny. (This idea was brought forth by Jeremy Bentham, who thought this was the natural way for human beings to behave.) I think revising this sentence would help make it sound better. I would state it as “Jeremy Bentham was the man who brought forth the idea and thought egoism was the natural was for human beings to behave.”
Lack of clarity: Clarity was very good. I understood everything the author was saying and wanted to get across.
Organization of ideas: I think the author’s organization of their ideas was displayed well and correctly.
Did the author answer their question? Yes the author did answer the question that was asked. The question asked was “Are we as human beings always driven by psychological egoism?” The author in many sentences, not in one particular sentence, answered this question. The author states, “I do not believe people are so primal that we innately seek out only the things that please us and refrain from those things that cause us pain.” The author also says, “I believe that there is more that goes into a person’s decision making process than simply if it benefits them or not.” These two sentences answer the author’s question.
Did the author provide a concrete example that clearly illustrates their main point? Yes the author did provide a concrete example to their question that illustrates their main point.
How does the author’s concrete example illustrate or not illustrate their main point? The example provides a picture of a fast food worker and an EMT with the caption stating “$15 per hour because we are the same.” The author then states that EMT’s would not continue with their jobs if the minimum wages were raised because it is a much more physically demanding job than working at a fast food joint, but since some people do not live the egoism way, these people see that helping others is more important that the amount of money they make or compared to other jobs. I think this example is a very good choice. It helps illustrate very well how egoism is not the way people chose to live.
Do you agree or disagree with the author’s answer and why? I agree with the authors answer because I myself focus on other peoples happiness and not just my own.
What is a concrete example that clearly illustrates why you agree or disagree with the author? I personally find more joy in giving to others whether it is helping someone out by giving them a ride, providing dinner for a family that has suffered a death, or even a gift for someone because you are thinking about them. All these different scenarios are an opportunity for me to make someone feel special or an opportunity for me to take some of the burden off of someone’s shoulders. It brings me more happiness to do them than the hassle of the time it takes to the tasks. I agree with the author that there is more that goes into how people come to making decisions than only what is best for them and only them.
What is your explanation of how your concrete example clearly illustrates your reason for why you agree or disagree with the author? I agree with what the author says that there is more to people than just their own personally wants in life. Helping others is more important to some than making more money.
Thank you both for this exchange in peer-reviewing. This is a great exchange. I hope you both agree, and that you both learned a lot from it!
ReplyDeletePhilosophy Explorer,
ReplyDeleteVery well written post. The thoughts you communicated in your post were, clear, concise, pointed, and your example illustrated your post very well. In terms of taking your thoughts further, here are some things you might want to consider:
I agree with you that some things we do are not wholly or, perhaps not at all, motivated by our own self-interests. I also agree with you that the fact that people do act out of the interests of the whole society or others is a very important aspect of our nature as moral beings. However, do you think that these two points work to justify the idea that those who are fast-food workers, EMTs, nurses, teachers, and many, many, many other people who are underpaid for the work they do ought to be paid in such a way that takes advantage of their altruism?
In other words, if you think about many jobs that depend especially on the fact that they are "serving" others, such as jobs that "serve" others but do not also come with an element of prestige (e.g., EMTs, nurses, caregivers, teachers, etc.), and how little our society pays people who do these kinds of jobs, compared to other jobs in which an element of prestige is an aspect of the job (e.g., doctors, lawyers, some professors, some school administrators, etc.), do you think it is appropriate for our society to pay the first category of people so little versus what our society deems appropriate to pay the second? And what about the people who don't do any kind of "service" job--the mega business owners? Is it okay for our society to have no expectation that such people should also be altruistic in their endeavors, perhaps pay their employees a wage that would help their employees or their employees' children flourish rather than maintain the status quo or enslave them, even if doing so would cut into the mega-business owner's profit margins?
Best wishes,
Dr. Mun