{"id":682,"date":"2025-03-13T18:56:36","date_gmt":"2025-03-13T18:56:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/chapter\/7-1-psychological-egoism-we-are-fundamentally-self-interested\/"},"modified":"2025-03-26T15:12:55","modified_gmt":"2025-03-26T15:12:55","slug":"7-1-psychological-egoism-we-are-fundamentally-self-interested","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/chapter\/7-1-psychological-egoism-we-are-fundamentally-self-interested\/","title":{"raw":"7.1\u00a0Psychological Egoism: We are fundamentally self-interested.","rendered":"7.1\u00a0Psychological Egoism: We are fundamentally self-interested."},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"7.1\u00a0psychological-egoism:-we-are-fundamentally-self-interested.\">\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff; text-align: right;\">Where the world comes in my way \u2013 and it comes in my way everywhere \u2013 I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but \u2013 my food, even as I too am fed upon and turned to use by you. -- Max Stirner<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">Ethical Egoism is the normative position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which is a descriptive claim that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also holds to a principle of <strong>rational self-interest<\/strong>, that it is rational to act in one's self-interest. Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer are ethical.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">Calling egoism a theory of ethics\u00a0may seem to stretch the meaning of the word \u201cethics\u201d to the breaking point, since egoism seems to deny that we can or should really care about ethical rules. But since advocates of Ethical Egoism make explicit claims about the relationship between ethics and rationality, any discussion of philosophical ethics cannot avoid dealing with egoism. Egoists claim, in fact, that rationality undermines the possibility of ethics as it has been traditionally understood. To the extent that we follow reason, as opposed to customary authority, we can and should cease to be concerned with the good of others. It is not that we will suddenly be cold to the needs and desires of others where we previously kept these interests close to our hearts. It is that we will recognize certain things about the way the world and human beings work that will compel us to give up certain ways of looking at the world. But we are getting ahead of ourselves here.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">We should note the differences between Psychological Egoism and, for want of a better term, Ethical Egoism. Psychological Egoism is the view that we cannot be unselfish even if we may want to be. This is a <em>descriptive<\/em> claim about human behavior, stating a view about human nature itself. Ethical Egoism, on the other hand, is the <em>normative<\/em> view that we should not be unselfish even though we can be. It offers rules for human behavior based upon the fact of psychological egoism.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--learning-objectives\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Two varieties of Egoism<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-Normal\">Psychological Egoism: a descriptive theory about the nature of human decision-making. It claims that all decisions are, by definition, self-serving and so\u00a0ethics is impossible.<\/li>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-Normal\">Ethical Egoism: a normative theory about what is best for all of us. It claims, somewhat paradoxically, that the best way to help others is to help yourself and so\u00a0ethics is wrong.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\"><strong>Psychological <\/strong><strong>E<\/strong><strong>goism<\/strong> is the view that all human actions are ultimately motivated by self-interest. It asserts that people always act to promote their own interests, even when their behavior appears to be altruistic or selfless. According to this view, every action, no matter how noble it seems, is driven by some form of personal benefit or self-serving motive. Psychological Egoism makes a very straightforward claim: we cannot be unselfish. That is, certain facts about human psychology prevent unselfish or \u201caltruistic\u201d behavior from being a live option. This may sound outrageous, but defenders of Psychological Egoism think that there is a compelling case that can be made for this view. Note that Psychological Egoism is\u00a0<em>not<\/em>\u00a0claiming that we <em>should<\/em> be selfish. That is what Ethical Egoism claims and is a very different type of claim. Psychological Egoism presents itself as a hard-nosed and realistic view that simply reports on the way things are \u2013 \u201clet\u2019s just face it, we all have an agenda, and anyone who denies this is a fool.\u201d According to Psychological Egoism, a careful and rational assessment of the evidence concerning human behavior, shows that ethical rules do not make very much sense, since we <em>cannot<\/em> ever put others first. That is, <strong>altruism<\/strong>, (acting selflessly, putting others needs and interests before one\u2019s own) is not possible. We will examine the arguments for this view in a moment.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Arguments for psychological egoism<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">Clearly if Psychological Egoism were true,\u00a0this would have an enormous impact on our lives. If we simply cannot ever really be unselfish, at best we are confused when we talk about ethics, and at worst we are deceiving ourselves about human nature. Whatever the case may be, Psychological Egoism compels us to give up the idea that we can ever act unselfishly \u2013 it relieves us from the burdens that go with ethical demands to help others and frees us to pursue our own self-interest without the guilt feelings that society has traditionally encouraged us to feel when we put ourselves first. Furthermore, the view that we are never unselfish strikes some people as a realistic antidote to the idealistic tone of ethics.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">If Psychological Egoism is true, describing human actions in terms of what we should and shouldn\u2019t do, in terms of duties and obligations, etc. is simply unrealistic and we should give it up. The ethical perspective would be revealed to be obsolete from the new, more \u201cscientific\u201d standpoint of Psychological Egoism. On the other hand, if Psychological Egoism is true, we would not ever have any grounds for complaint about the way others treat us. If nobody really can be unselfish, what right would we ever have to ask others to take our interests seriously and not try to take advantage of us?<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">But <em>is<\/em> psychological egoism a true description of human nature and behavior? So far, we haven\u2019t been given any reason to suppose that it is in fact true. So let us look at the arguments that might be offered in its defense. There are two main arguments in defense of Psychological Egoism. The first is a purely theoretical argument. It is based on an analysis of rational decision-making and claims that because of certain facts about the way we make decisions, these decisions are always selfish.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>When I make a decision, I attempt to fulfill my goals since I cannot act on anyone else\u2019s goals.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>But acting for the sake of fulfilling my goals is acting selfishly.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Therefore, since the same point applies equally to everyone, we are all always selfish.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<span style=\"text-align: initial; font-size: 1em;\">What this argument is claiming is that if we think about what is involved in rational action in general, we will soon realize that it must be selfish <\/span><em style=\"text-align: initial; font-size: 1em;\">by definition<\/em><span style=\"text-align: initial; font-size: 1em;\">. Since my reasons for action are nobody\u2019s but my own, they must be oriented toward my own good. After all, this is what it means to act rationally \u2013 rational action is action that effectively realizes one\u2019s goals. But since these goals must be my goals, otherwise they would fail to motivate my decisions, it clearly seems to follow that I have no choice but to act for my own sake. Acting for someone else\u2019s goals is just impossible. But acting for one\u2019s own goals exclusively is just what it means to be selfish. Hence Psychological Egoism must be true.<\/span>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">A second argument\u00a0for Psychological Egoism is an empirical argument. It does not rest on the claim that we are, by nature, selfish even though that is what Psychological Egoism ultimately claims. Instead, it appeals to evidence about real human behavior in the real world.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>If psychological egoism were false, we should be able to find a real example of selfless or altruistic behavior.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>But there are no such examples.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>So, Psychological Egoism is true.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">To many this argument\u00a0just seems silly. Aren\u2019t there in fact are plenty of examples of real altruistic behavior out there? Sure, some people are selfish, but there are many people who help other people at no apparent gain to themselves. Here are a few ordinary examples:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">A person gives all their extra money, after paying their bills and buying groceries, to charity and does so anonymously.<\/li>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">Another person stops to help the victim of an accident on the highway even though doing so makes them late for an important meeting.<\/li>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">Someone else spends their weekends volunteering at the hospital.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">As you may already suspect,\u00a0a defender of Psychological Egoism has an answer to this objection. The second argument for Psychological Egoism does not instantly fall apart under the weight of these apparent counterexamples. This is because, according to Psychological Egoism, they are only\u00a0<em>apparent<\/em>\u00a0examples of altruism \u2013 on closer examination these apparently altruistic acts can be shown to\u00a0<em>really<\/em>\u00a0be based on underlying selfish motives. Take the case of a person who gives to charity anonymously. Isn\u2019t there likely to be a selfish motive in this? Perhaps this person feels guilty for having as much money as she has and decides that the best way to make herself feel better is to give a large anonymous donation to a charity. Or maybe it is a way of avoiding paying taxes on the rest of her money \u2013 if you do it right, donating to charity can save you money on your taxes by lowering your tax bracket. The same kind of argument can apply in the other cases as well. Can\u2019t we reinterpret the motives of people who help strangers in a way that makes them seem less altruistic and more selfish? Once again, the motives for helping people might be to relieve one\u2019s own guilt feelings, or to enjoy the feeling of being a hero, or the fame that goes with getting your picture in the paper as the heroic rescuer of that poor, helpless victim of the accident. Volunteering? Well, that looks great on your resume, plus it is a great way to meet people without having to buy them drinks, etc. This line of reasoning is intended to provide additional support in defense of Psychological Egoism against the objection that people \u201cobviously\u201d do not always act on the basis of selfish motives.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">But what about\u00a0the first argument? This argument claimed that we could see that human behavior has to be selfish to the extent that it is rational simply because we all are only capable of making decisions that fulfill our own goals. Rational decision-making is decision-making that realizes one\u2019s own goals and so it is bound to be selfish, the argument concludes. A little reflection on this argument, however, reveals a subtle problem. Does the fact that a goal is\u00a0<em>my own<\/em>\u00a0goal mean that my interests alone are at stake in the attempt to satisfy that goal? Only if we assume that I cannot have goals that involve helping other people. But why should we assume this? PE claims that my goals are always my goals, and so they must be selfish. But doesn\u2019t this mix up two different meanings of the expression \u201cmy goals?\u201d Clearly it is true that my goals are my own \u2013 if they are going to get my body moving, they must be in my own head. That is a trivial truth of human psychology \u2013 it is so obvious that there usually isn\u2019t much point mentioning it. The thoughts in your head cannot cause me to do anything, at least in any direct way. But \u201cmy goals\u201d might also mean, \u201cmy goals, as opposed to your goals\u201d in a situation where both cannot be satisfied simultaneously. If my goal is to rob you of all your money and your goal is to prevent me from doing that this is the meaning of the expression \u201cmy goals\u201d that is appropriate. But these two meanings are different, so if our argument uses both meanings as if they were equivalent, it is guilty of the fallacy of <a href=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/part\/appendix-a-logical-fallacies#_Equivocation\"><span class=\"import-Hyperlink\">equivocation<\/span><\/a>. Thus, the first argument is revealed to be invalid, since it equivocates on the meaning of the expression \u201cmy goals.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Ponder if you will\u2026<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">Recall Glaucon\u2019s argument in the Republic found in chapter 3.1 above. Would he agree or disagree with the premises of psychological egoism?<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<div class=\"7.1\u00a0psychological-egoism:-we-are-fundamentally-self-interested.\">\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff; text-align: right;\">Where the world comes in my way \u2013 and it comes in my way everywhere \u2013 I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but \u2013 my food, even as I too am fed upon and turned to use by you. &#8212; Max Stirner<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">Ethical Egoism is the normative position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which is a descriptive claim that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also holds to a principle of <strong>rational self-interest<\/strong>, that it is rational to act in one&#8217;s self-interest. Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer are ethical.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">Calling egoism a theory of ethics\u00a0may seem to stretch the meaning of the word \u201cethics\u201d to the breaking point, since egoism seems to deny that we can or should really care about ethical rules. But since advocates of Ethical Egoism make explicit claims about the relationship between ethics and rationality, any discussion of philosophical ethics cannot avoid dealing with egoism. Egoists claim, in fact, that rationality undermines the possibility of ethics as it has been traditionally understood. To the extent that we follow reason, as opposed to customary authority, we can and should cease to be concerned with the good of others. It is not that we will suddenly be cold to the needs and desires of others where we previously kept these interests close to our hearts. It is that we will recognize certain things about the way the world and human beings work that will compel us to give up certain ways of looking at the world. But we are getting ahead of ourselves here.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">We should note the differences between Psychological Egoism and, for want of a better term, Ethical Egoism. Psychological Egoism is the view that we cannot be unselfish even if we may want to be. This is a <em>descriptive<\/em> claim about human behavior, stating a view about human nature itself. Ethical Egoism, on the other hand, is the <em>normative<\/em> view that we should not be unselfish even though we can be. It offers rules for human behavior based upon the fact of psychological egoism.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--learning-objectives\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Two varieties of Egoism<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<ul>\n<li class=\"import-Normal\">Psychological Egoism: a descriptive theory about the nature of human decision-making. It claims that all decisions are, by definition, self-serving and so\u00a0ethics is impossible.<\/li>\n<li class=\"import-Normal\">Ethical Egoism: a normative theory about what is best for all of us. It claims, somewhat paradoxically, that the best way to help others is to help yourself and so\u00a0ethics is wrong.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\"><strong>Psychological <\/strong><strong>E<\/strong><strong>goism<\/strong> is the view that all human actions are ultimately motivated by self-interest. It asserts that people always act to promote their own interests, even when their behavior appears to be altruistic or selfless. According to this view, every action, no matter how noble it seems, is driven by some form of personal benefit or self-serving motive. Psychological Egoism makes a very straightforward claim: we cannot be unselfish. That is, certain facts about human psychology prevent unselfish or \u201caltruistic\u201d behavior from being a live option. This may sound outrageous, but defenders of Psychological Egoism think that there is a compelling case that can be made for this view. Note that Psychological Egoism is\u00a0<em>not<\/em>\u00a0claiming that we <em>should<\/em> be selfish. That is what Ethical Egoism claims and is a very different type of claim. Psychological Egoism presents itself as a hard-nosed and realistic view that simply reports on the way things are \u2013 \u201clet\u2019s just face it, we all have an agenda, and anyone who denies this is a fool.\u201d According to Psychological Egoism, a careful and rational assessment of the evidence concerning human behavior, shows that ethical rules do not make very much sense, since we <em>cannot<\/em> ever put others first. That is, <strong>altruism<\/strong>, (acting selflessly, putting others needs and interests before one\u2019s own) is not possible. We will examine the arguments for this view in a moment.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Arguments for psychological egoism<\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">Clearly if Psychological Egoism were true,\u00a0this would have an enormous impact on our lives. If we simply cannot ever really be unselfish, at best we are confused when we talk about ethics, and at worst we are deceiving ourselves about human nature. Whatever the case may be, Psychological Egoism compels us to give up the idea that we can ever act unselfishly \u2013 it relieves us from the burdens that go with ethical demands to help others and frees us to pursue our own self-interest without the guilt feelings that society has traditionally encouraged us to feel when we put ourselves first. Furthermore, the view that we are never unselfish strikes some people as a realistic antidote to the idealistic tone of ethics.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">If Psychological Egoism is true, describing human actions in terms of what we should and shouldn\u2019t do, in terms of duties and obligations, etc. is simply unrealistic and we should give it up. The ethical perspective would be revealed to be obsolete from the new, more \u201cscientific\u201d standpoint of Psychological Egoism. On the other hand, if Psychological Egoism is true, we would not ever have any grounds for complaint about the way others treat us. If nobody really can be unselfish, what right would we ever have to ask others to take our interests seriously and not try to take advantage of us?<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">But <em>is<\/em> psychological egoism a true description of human nature and behavior? So far, we haven\u2019t been given any reason to suppose that it is in fact true. So let us look at the arguments that might be offered in its defense. There are two main arguments in defense of Psychological Egoism. The first is a purely theoretical argument. It is based on an analysis of rational decision-making and claims that because of certain facts about the way we make decisions, these decisions are always selfish.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<ul>\n<li>When I make a decision, I attempt to fulfill my goals since I cannot act on anyone else\u2019s goals.<\/li>\n<li>But acting for the sake of fulfilling my goals is acting selfishly.<\/li>\n<li>Therefore, since the same point applies equally to everyone, we are all always selfish.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p><span style=\"text-align: initial; font-size: 1em;\">What this argument is claiming is that if we think about what is involved in rational action in general, we will soon realize that it must be selfish <\/span><em style=\"text-align: initial; font-size: 1em;\">by definition<\/em><span style=\"text-align: initial; font-size: 1em;\">. Since my reasons for action are nobody\u2019s but my own, they must be oriented toward my own good. After all, this is what it means to act rationally \u2013 rational action is action that effectively realizes one\u2019s goals. But since these goals must be my goals, otherwise they would fail to motivate my decisions, it clearly seems to follow that I have no choice but to act for my own sake. Acting for someone else\u2019s goals is just impossible. But acting for one\u2019s own goals exclusively is just what it means to be selfish. Hence Psychological Egoism must be true.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">A second argument\u00a0for Psychological Egoism is an empirical argument. It does not rest on the claim that we are, by nature, selfish even though that is what Psychological Egoism ultimately claims. Instead, it appeals to evidence about real human behavior in the real world.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<ul>\n<li>If psychological egoism were false, we should be able to find a real example of selfless or altruistic behavior.<\/li>\n<li>But there are no such examples.<\/li>\n<li>So, Psychological Egoism is true.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">To many this argument\u00a0just seems silly. Aren\u2019t there in fact are plenty of examples of real altruistic behavior out there? Sure, some people are selfish, but there are many people who help other people at no apparent gain to themselves. Here are a few ordinary examples:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">A person gives all their extra money, after paying their bills and buying groceries, to charity and does so anonymously.<\/li>\n<li class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">Another person stops to help the victim of an accident on the highway even though doing so makes them late for an important meeting.<\/li>\n<li class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">Someone else spends their weekends volunteering at the hospital.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">As you may already suspect,\u00a0a defender of Psychological Egoism has an answer to this objection. The second argument for Psychological Egoism does not instantly fall apart under the weight of these apparent counterexamples. This is because, according to Psychological Egoism, they are only\u00a0<em>apparent<\/em>\u00a0examples of altruism \u2013 on closer examination these apparently altruistic acts can be shown to\u00a0<em>really<\/em>\u00a0be based on underlying selfish motives. Take the case of a person who gives to charity anonymously. Isn\u2019t there likely to be a selfish motive in this? Perhaps this person feels guilty for having as much money as she has and decides that the best way to make herself feel better is to give a large anonymous donation to a charity. Or maybe it is a way of avoiding paying taxes on the rest of her money \u2013 if you do it right, donating to charity can save you money on your taxes by lowering your tax bracket. The same kind of argument can apply in the other cases as well. Can\u2019t we reinterpret the motives of people who help strangers in a way that makes them seem less altruistic and more selfish? Once again, the motives for helping people might be to relieve one\u2019s own guilt feelings, or to enjoy the feeling of being a hero, or the fame that goes with getting your picture in the paper as the heroic rescuer of that poor, helpless victim of the accident. Volunteering? Well, that looks great on your resume, plus it is a great way to meet people without having to buy them drinks, etc. This line of reasoning is intended to provide additional support in defense of Psychological Egoism against the objection that people \u201cobviously\u201d do not always act on the basis of selfish motives.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">But what about\u00a0the first argument? This argument claimed that we could see that human behavior has to be selfish to the extent that it is rational simply because we all are only capable of making decisions that fulfill our own goals. Rational decision-making is decision-making that realizes one\u2019s own goals and so it is bound to be selfish, the argument concludes. A little reflection on this argument, however, reveals a subtle problem. Does the fact that a goal is\u00a0<em>my own<\/em>\u00a0goal mean that my interests alone are at stake in the attempt to satisfy that goal? Only if we assume that I cannot have goals that involve helping other people. But why should we assume this? PE claims that my goals are always my goals, and so they must be selfish. But doesn\u2019t this mix up two different meanings of the expression \u201cmy goals?\u201d Clearly it is true that my goals are my own \u2013 if they are going to get my body moving, they must be in my own head. That is a trivial truth of human psychology \u2013 it is so obvious that there usually isn\u2019t much point mentioning it. The thoughts in your head cannot cause me to do anything, at least in any direct way. But \u201cmy goals\u201d might also mean, \u201cmy goals, as opposed to your goals\u201d in a situation where both cannot be satisfied simultaneously. If my goal is to rob you of all your money and your goal is to prevent me from doing that this is the meaning of the expression \u201cmy goals\u201d that is appropriate. But these two meanings are different, so if our argument uses both meanings as if they were equivalent, it is guilty of the fallacy of <a href=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/part\/appendix-a-logical-fallacies#_Equivocation\"><span class=\"import-Hyperlink\">equivocation<\/span><\/a>. Thus, the first argument is revealed to be invalid, since it equivocates on the meaning of the expression \u201cmy goals.\u201d<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Ponder if you will\u2026<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">Recall Glaucon\u2019s argument in the Republic found in chapter 3.1 above. Would he agree or disagree with the premises of psychological egoism?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":101,"menu_order":17,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-682","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":903,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/682","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/101"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/682\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1164,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/682\/revisions\/1164"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/903"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/682\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=682"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=682"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}