Egoism and Moral Skepticism: Rachels, Glaucon, and Self-Interest
This paper analyzes James Rachels' essay "Egoism and Moral Skepticism" through the lens of Glaucon's challenge in Plato's Republic. It examines the concepts of ethical egoism and psychological egoism, exploring whether all human actions — even those that appear selfless — ultimately serve self-interest. Drawing on Rachels' examples of friendship, dentist visits, and obligation, the paper argues that morality is largely driven by the desire to avoid negative consequences and preserve personal advantage. The author contends that obligation itself is a product of self-interest, and that the removal of consequences — as illustrated by the ring of invisibility — would undermine most, if not all, moral behavior.
- Introduction: Ordinary Morality and Moral Skepticism: Rachels' moral assumptions challenged by skeptical tradition
- Glaucon's Challenge: The Ring of Invisibility: Invisibility ring illustrates morality as fear-based constraint
- Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism: Defining egoism and Rachels' rejection of psychological egoism
- Rachels' Examples and the Limits of Obligation: Friend and dentist examples reframed as self-interested acts
- Self-Interest, Consequences, and the Foundation of Morality: Consequences — internal and external — underpin all moral behavior
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper closely engages with the primary text, tracking Rachels' arguments and responding to them with specific counter-examples drawn from the same source material.
- It builds a consistent thesis — that obligation is a product of self-interest — across multiple examples, showing how the argument applies in varied scenarios.
- The conclusion extends the analysis beyond legal consequences to include internal states like guilt and shame, adding nuance to the egoism argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates critical engagement with a secondary source by accepting the author's framework while systematically challenging his conclusions. Rather than simply summarizing Rachels, the student identifies a logical gap — the conflation of "not wanting to do something" with "unselfishness" — and uses it to reframe obligation as self-interested behavior. This technique of using an author's own examples against their conclusions is an effective undergraduate philosophical writing strategy.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a summary of Rachels' premise about ordinary moral assumptions and introduces Glaucon's skeptical counterpoint via the ring of invisibility myth. It then defines ethical and psychological egoism before pivoting to a sustained critique of Rachels' specific examples (the loyal friend and the dentist visit). The closing section synthesizes the argument, asserting that consequence-avoidance — including internal consequences like guilt — is the true foundation of moral behavior.
Introduction: Ordinary Morality and Moral Skepticism
Ordinary thinking concerning morality, from James Rachels' perspective, is "full of assumptions that we almost never question. We assume, for example, that we have an obligation to consider the welfare of other people when we decide what actions we have to perform or what rules to obey" (Rachels, 2011, p. 51). In other words, people generate a kind of moral filter that governs their actions in order to avoid causing harm to others and to respect the interests and rights of those they encounter. Beyond this, another element that enters into moral thinking is the assumption that people are not wholly selfish — that they possess some degree of selflessness in their interactions and can act in the interest of other individuals and groups.
Moral skeptics, however, criticize such assumptions, and these criticisms stretch back as far as Plato's Republic. Through the story of the ring of invisibility — and the power it brings, including the seduction of a queen, the murder of a king, and the seizure of a throne — Glaucon provides a counterargument to the concept of morality and all that it is perceived to encompass.
Glaucon's Challenge: The Ring of Invisibility
In his article, Rachels presents Glaucon's example of a rogue and a virtuous man. The assumption is that the rogue will do as he pleases in order to seize power. He acts this way because, under the protection of invisibility, he fears neither being caught nor facing any negative consequences. He is therefore unrestrained from committing wrongful acts and has, in other words, no operative sense of morality to govern his behavior. Some might argue that he is a rogue and that such conduct is simply expected of him. However, Glaucon contends that the virtuous man would act in the same manner under the same conditions, precisely because that same absence of consequences applies equally to him.
From Glaucon's perspective, no one possesses sufficient strength of mind to behave in a moral and upstanding way under such circumstances. It is the fear of reprisal, then, that confines individuals to moral standards — and the absence of that fear destroys whatever morality exists within them. As explored in Glaucon's argument, if there is no advantage to being moral — no punishment to evade — then most, if not all, people will tend toward immorality.
Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism
The skeptical viewpoints Glaucon advances are associated with two philosophical positions: ethical egoism and psychological egoism. Essentially, these terms point to the idea that people are fundamentally selfish, and that the only thing restraining them from immoral behavior is self-interest. "On this view, even when men are acting in ways apparently calculated to benefit others, they are actually motivated by the belief that acting in this way is to their own advantage" (Rachels, 2011, p. 52). Rachels argues, in response, that not everything is motivated by selfishness but rather by obligation — and this reasoning is central to his rejection of psychological egoism.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.