are there moral truths?

 425

more primitive, barbaric, and selfish levels. Nor would people be inspired to try to
elevate themselves, to become more enlightened, if all moral values (or what are tradi-
tionally thought of as immoral values) are of equal validity.

W. T. Stace, from The Concept of Morals

Finally, not only is ethical relativity disastrous in its consequences for moral theory,
it cannot be doubted that it must tend to be equally disastrous in its impact upon prac-
tical conduct. If men come really to believe that one moral standard has nothing special
to recommend it, they might as well then slip down to some lower and easier standard. It
is true that for a time, it may be possible, to hold one view in theory and to act practically
upon another. But ideas, even philosophical ideas, are not so ineffectual that they can
remain forever idle in the upper chambers of the intellect. In the end they seep down to the
level of practice. They get themselves acted on. . . .

Reading Critically
Analyzing Stace’s Critique of Ethical Relativism
• Imagine that you were engaged in a discussion with an ethical relativist. How would
you use James’s and Stace’s criteria of “subjective satisfaction” and “rational
explanation” to argue against their views?
• Do you agree with Stace that if people became convinced that ethical relativism
was indeed true, that this would gradually have the effect of eroding their moral
values to what we generally think of as less sophisticated, less enlightened levels?
Why or why not?

8.4  Egoism as a Universal Principle “For every man by natural

necessity desires that which is
The conceptual flaws and logical self-contradictions of ethical relativism have led good for him.” Thomas Hobbes
many philosophers to conclude that it is untenable as an ethical theory. And as W. T.
Stace points out, if we abandon ethical relativism, then we are left within some form
of ethical absolutism: the notion that at least some moral values are universal and
binding on all humans. However, within the general framework of ethical absolutism,
there are many possible theories. The first that we shall explore is ethical egoism, the Ethical egoism
belief that the highest moral value for all humans is to pursue their own happiness. The view that we act morally when
This does not mean that you should necessarily be selfish, seeking to take more than we pursue our own self-interest.
your share in life. Rather, it simply expresses the view that all things being equal, your
needs and interests should take precedence over the needs and interests of others. For
the ethical egoist, “Looking out for #1” is not something to be ashamed about—in fact,
it is the best way for you to act in a morally enlightened manner. Nor does it entail
being an egotist—a person who is arrogant, boastful, and obsessed with his or her self.
Instead, the ethical egoist may have friendly, harmonious, and productive relation-
ships with others. It’s just that in the final analysis, when our needs and interests are
in conflict or competition with those of others, it is our moral obligation to take care of
our own needs and interests first. For the ethical egoists, this is a moral value that is
binding on all humans.
The ethical egoists recognize that such a view runs counter to the prevailing
moral values of many cultures, in which the venerated moral values include altruism,
self-sacrifice, empathy, communal responsibility, love, social responsibility to those
in need, and a willingness to sacrifice our own needs for the good of the group.

SAuSAgEMaN
426  Chapter 8

Nevertheless, the ethical egoists are convinced that these traditional moral values
represent a skewed and unhealthy perspective on how humans ought to think
and behave.

Arguments for Egoism

One of the first coherent expressions of the ethical egoist perspective is found in
Plato’s Republic, his monumental exploration of the nature of justice. Plato was not
himself, strictly speaking, an ethical egoist, but he gives voice to this view through
the person of Glaucon, who tries to convince Socrates that pursuing our own self-
interest is our natural condition, and rather than denying this fact, we should embrace
it. Glaucon uses a story, “The Myth of Gyges,” to make his point.

Plato, from The Republic, “The Myth

of Gyges”
Plato (428–347 b.c.e)  An ancient
Glaucon:  First I will speak of the nature and origin of justice according to the
Greek philosopher of extraordinary
common view of them. Secondly, I will show that all men who practise justice do so
­significance in the history of ideas.
against their will, of necessity, but not as a good. And thirdly, I will argue that there is
Plato not only preserved Socrates’s
teachings for future generations reason in this view, for the life of the unjust is after all better far than the life of the just if
but also contributed original ideas what they say is true, Socrates, since I myself am not of their opinion … I have never yet
on a wide range of issues such as heard the superiority of justice to injustice maintained by any one in a satisfactory way. I
morality, politics, metaphysics, and want to hear justice praised in respect of itself; then I shall be satisfied, and you are the
­epistemology. person from whom I think that I am most likely to hear this; and therefore I will praise
the unjust life to the utmost of my power, and my manner of speaking will indicate the
manner in which I desire to hear you too praising justice and censuring injustice. Will
you say whether you approve of my proposal?
Socrates:  Indeed I do; nor can I imagine any theme about which a man of sense would
oftener wish to converse.
Glaucon:  I am delighted, he replied, to hear you say so, and shall begin by speaking, as
I proposed, of the nature and origin of justice.
Glaucon:  They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but
that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and suffered
injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain
the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence
there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by
them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice; it is a mean or
compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and
the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice,
being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil,
and honoured by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy
to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he
would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin
of justice.

Glaucon begins his case for ethical egoism with a proposed analysis of the origins of
Social contract theory “justice.” The version he is presenting has come to be known as the social contract theory
The view that the main reason of political development. This view of humans assumes that we are by nature solitary,
people agree to form political aggressive, and competitive. It is in our nature to promote our own interests over those
communities is out of necessity, of others, and even inflict harm on them if it will advance our desires. However, although
because life in a prepolitical it is our nature to inflict harm in order to advance ourselves, we realize that in such a
“state of nature” would be, though lawless world we ourselves are vulnerable to being victimized by others. As a result, we
preferable, extremely difficult. enter into a social agreement with others, promising not to hurt or take advantage of
them if they won’t hurt or take advantage of us. This “compromise,” as Glaucon terms

SAuSAgEMaN
 are there moral truths? 427

it, is not ideal, but it’s the best we can do under the circumstances. It would be preferable
to us if we could simply bring our own will and desires to bear on others without fear of
reprisals or counterattacks.
Glaucon’s next point in his argument for ethical egoism is that although people
have freely entered into a social contract to escape the danger and instability of the
“state of nature,” they do so reluctantly. Abiding by the laws of the social contract runs
counter to our nature to dominate and exploit others for our own personal advance-
ment. And if we had an opportunity to break these laws without suffering negative
consequences, all of us would leap at the opportunity to do so. And such behavior
would be morally appropriate, because we would simply be acting in accord with our
universal nature.

Plato, from The Republic, “The Myth of Gyges”

Now that those who practise justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the
power to be unjust will best appear if we imagine something of this kind: having given
both to the just and the unjust power to do what they will, let us watch and see whither
desire will lead them; then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to
be proceeding along the same road, following their interest, which all natures deem to
be their good, and are only diverted into the path of justice by the force of law. The
liberty which we are supposing may be most completely given to them in the form of
such a power as is said to have been possessed by Gyges the ancestor of Croesus
the Lydian. According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king
of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at
the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the
opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors,
at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him,
more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of
the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that
they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he
came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn
the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the
company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was aston-
ished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared;
he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result—when he turned
the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he
contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as
soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king
and slew him, and took the kingdom.
Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them
and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he
would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when
he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one
at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a
God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they
would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof
that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him indi-
vidually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there
he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the
individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are
right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never
doing any wrong or touching what was another’s, he would be thought by the lookers—on
to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another’s faces, and
keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.
Enough of this.

SAuSAgEMaN
428  Chapter 8

Reading Critically
Analyzing the Myth of Gyges
• Do you think that most people will break laws and violate traditional moral values
if they’re confident that they won’t be caught? Identify one example that would
support this thesis (for example, the looting that takes place during riots) and
another example that contradicts it (returning a lost wallet that only you know you
found).
• When you hear about someone who could have cheated or lied for their own benefit
but refused to, do you consider them, in Glaucon’s words, “a miserable fool”? Why
or why not?
• If you found yourself in possession of the Ring of Gyges, identify three “immoral”
things you might do by making yourself invisible that you ordinarily wouldn’t do
(for example, walking into a sold-out concert for which you couldn’t buy tickets).
• Glaucon states that, “What people say is that to do wrong is, in itself, a desirable
thing; on the other hand, it is not at all desirable to suffer wrong, and the harm
to the sufferer outweighs the advantage to the doer.” Socrates believes just the
Psychological egoism
opposite, stating that “It is better to suffer wickedness than to commit it,” and
The view that we are compelled by contending that doing wrong “will harm and corrupt that part of ourselves that is
our psychological makeup always improved by just actions and destroyed by unjust actions.” Identify which viewpoint
to pursue our self-interest above you believe makes most sense, and explain your reasons for believing so.
all else.

Ethical egoism should not be confused with psychological egoism, a theory that
purports to describe the way humans necessarily behave. According to psychological
egoism, we are driven to pursue our own self-interest by our inborn human nature—
we cannot do otherwise. There are serious challenges to the theory of psychological
egoism, which we will explore later in the chapter in the work of philosopher James
Rachels. For now, however, we are interested in the theory of ethical egoism, which
holds that although it may be possible for humans to act in a way that sacrifices their
own self-interests, it is immoral to do so. The core belief of ethical egoism is that it is our
moral obligation to pursue our own self-interest as our first priority, and when we
fail to do so, our behavior is ethically inappropriate. One individual who has given a
passionate defense of this view is the novelist and essayist Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand is best known for her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and
her ethical philosophy of individualism and “the virtue of selfishness” which they
embody. Rand rejects the psychological egoist view that people are compelled to seek
their own self-interest. Rather than articulate a descriptive theory regarding the way
humans are constructed, Rand is proposing a normative theory that expresses the way
Ayn Rand (1905–1982).  Rand was humans ought to behave. From her standpoint, it is our moral duty to pursue our own
an American writer who advocated
rational self-interest. The “virtue” of altruism that traditional ethical theories and
“the virtue of selfishness” in her novels,
plays, and short stories. Her most
religions recommend is actually a vice, because it encourages people not to pursue
famous works are The Fountainhead their own self-interest as their top priority, as Rand contends in her book The Virtue of
(1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). Selfishness.

Ayn Rand, from The Virtue of Selfishness

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a
murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares
for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any
immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern
with one’s own interests.

SAuSAgEMaN
 are there moral truths? 429

From Rand’s standpoint, the highest moral value is to pursue one’s self interests.
However, she believes that the prevailing social morality views pursuing one’s self-
interest—“selfishness” in Rand’s terminology—as a moral evil. Rand believes that
the popular opinion views people who pursue their own self-interest as insensitive,
murderous brutes who will trample over the rights and interests of others in order to
get ahead. For Rand, there are only two moral possibilities:

• a “Selfish Morality” that guides people to pursue their self-interest

• an “Altruistic Morality” that guides people to pursue anybody else’s interest
except their own.

In her words.
“Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good,
and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an
action is the only criterion of moral values—and so long as that beneficiary is
anybody other than oneself, anything goes.”

To support her point of view, she provides several examples of common social
judgments that she considers perversely immoral.

• Society typically considers as equally immoral an industrialist who produces a

fortune and a gangster who robs a bank because they both sought wealth for their
own “selfish” benefit.
• Society typically considers a young man who gives up his career in order to
support his parents, never rising above the rank of grocery clerk to be morally
IS IT ETHICAL TO BREAK THE
superior to a young man who achieves his personal ambition through enduring
LAW TO DEFEND OUR PERSONAL
an excruciating struggle. INTEGRITY?  Gary Cooper in The
• Society typically regards a ruthless dictator as “moral” since the unspeakable Fountainhead. The protagonist of this
atrocities he committed were intended to benefit “the people,” not himself. film and novel is Howard Roark,
a gifted and original architect who
According to Rand, the real problem with an altruistic morality is that it does refuses to compromise his artistic
not permit the moral goodness of a self-respecting and self-supporting person— vision to please others. Roark
personifies Rand’s moral ideal.
a person who supports her life by her own efforts and does not sacrifice either
When his designs for a huge public
her own interest or others. Such a person embodies authentic “justice,” pursuing works project are modified—and in
a benevolent coexistence with others. Instead, society decrees that in order to be his mind adulterated—without his
morally “good” we must be “sacrificial animals,” victims to others. The only other permission, he undertakes to destroy
possibility is to be immoral “profiteers-on-sacrifice,” parasites on others. For Rand, the completed structures. How would
the only solution is for society to recognize that genuine morality means being you evaluate the morality of his
decision? Why?
concerned with one’s own interests, that “a
man must be the beneficiary of his own moral
actions.”
It’s a provocative thesis that Rand is
defending, and she expresses her view with
unrepentant passion. “Selfishness” is not evil—
“altruism” is evil. Traditional views of what is
morally good and right have inverted the true
nature of moral values. Why? According to
Nietzsche (Ayn Rand rejects his answer), it is
because people who are weak fear and envy the
strong individualists in our world. They resent
their independence, their passion, their creative
visions. These parasitic “second-handers”
constrain the strong individualists by creating a
perverse system of morality that villainizes the
true individual and celebrates the weak altruist

SAuSAgEMaN
430  Chapter 8

devoted to self-sacrifice. In this wrong-headed system, the pursuit of self-interest is

branded as “selfishness,” whereas the unnatural denial of self-interest is considered
to be a saintly virtue. According to Rand, altruism discourages us from fulfilling our
greatest potential.
Rand is careful to point out, however, that the ultimate moral value of
pursuing one’s self-interest means pursuing one’s rational self-interest. What this
means is that the code of ethics that each person is expected to create on his or
her own must be an “objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral prin-
ciples which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license ‘to
do as he pleases.’” In other words, pursuing your self-interest means creating a
value system that is not destructive to yourself, nor is it destructive to others.
From Rand’s point of view, it is not rational to claim that narcotic use and exces-
sive drinking are your moral values, because these inhibit living a productive,
fulfilling life that is truly in your self-interest. Similarly, it is irrational to declare
that stealing from others will be your defining moral value in pursuing your self-
interest, because such behavior is the antithesis of a strong, independent person
achieving his or her creative potentials. Other people are not our enemies, and it is
likely that we will have friendly and productive relationships with many people.
But we should resist sacrificing our self-interest for the sake of others because such
immoral behavior enslaves us to the group will and prevents us from achieving
our greatest goals.

Reading Critically
Analyzing Rand on the Virtue of Selfishness
• Rand contends that endorsing altruism as a moral value necessarily means
condemning the pursuit of one’s own self-interest. Do you agree with this point?
Why or why not? Provide an example to support your conclusion.
• In her analysis, Rand equates the terms “self-interest” and “selfishness.” Do they
really mean the same thing? Is it possible to pursue your own self-interest without
being selfish, or do these two terms share the same meaning? Provide an example
to support your response.
• Rand states, “An industrialist who produces a fortune, and a gangster who robs
a bank are regarded as equally immoral, since they both sought wealth for their
own selfish benefit. A young man who gives up his career in order to support his
parents and never rises beyond the rank of grocery clerk is regarded as morally
superior to the young man who endures an excruciating struggle and achieves his
personal ambition.” Critically evaluate these examples. Can you provide parallels to
contemporary figures or people in your own life?
• After endorsing the view that every person must “recognize his need of a
moral code to guide the course and fulfillment of his own life,” Rand goes
on to say “The reasons why man needs a moral code will tell you that the
purpose of morality is to define man’s proper values and interests, that concern
with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence, and that man must
be the beneficiary of his own moral actions.” Critically evaluate the logic of
this position, identifying both arguments that support this position and those
that don’t.

Arguments Against Egoism

The views of psychological egoism (people necessarily act in their own self-interest)
and ethical egoism (people should always strive to act in their own self-interest) have
been attacked by those who believe that egoism does not represent human’s natural

SAuSAgEMaN