Essay Undergraduate 622 words

Egoism and Moral Skepticism: Rachels's Philosophical Analysis

~4 min read

Abstract

This paper analyzes James Rachels's philosophical essay "Egoism and Moral Skepticism," tracing its central arguments back to Plato's myth of the Ring of Gyges and Glaucon's claim that humans act virtuously only out of fear of reprisal. The paper examines Rachels's critique of two related positions: psychological egoism, the descriptive claim that all human action is ultimately self-interested, and ethical egoism, the normative claim that self-interest is always morally justified. The analysis explains how Rachels dismantles both views, focusing on the logical sleight-of-hand that conflates self-interest with selfishness and the definitional maneuver that renders altruism conceptually impossible.

📝 How to Write This Type of Paper Writing guide — click to expand

▼

What makes this paper effective

The paper accurately traces Rachels's argument in a logical sequence, moving from the mythological origin of the problem through each philosophical position before addressing their refutation.
It uses concrete examples from the source text — such as visiting a doctor versus choosing to smoke — to illustrate abstract distinctions between selfishness and self-interest.
The tone is appropriately critical, characterizing Rachels's own evaluative language (e.g., "glib sophistry") while keeping the analysis grounded in the text.

Key academic technique demonstrated

The paper demonstrates close philosophical reading: it does not merely summarize Rachels's conclusions but reconstructs the logical structure of his objections. By identifying the definitional sleight-of-hand at the heart of psychological egoism — the blurring of selfishness and self-interest — the paper shows how philosophical arguments can be undermined by their own internal conceptual confusion rather than by external counter-evidence alone.

Structure breakdown

The paper opens by establishing historical and philosophical context through Plato's Ring of Gyges, then introduces both egoist positions. It moves into a detailed examination of Rachels's objections to psychological egoism, first addressing the volition argument and then the selfishness/self-interest distinction. The paper ends mid-argument, suggesting it is an excerpt from a longer analysis. Each paragraph corresponds closely to a distinct argumentative move in Rachels's original essay.

Introduction: The Ring of Gyges and Two Egoist Positions

James Rachels's paper Egoism and Moral Skepticism begins by tracing its subject back to Plato's philosophical discussion of the myth of the Ring of Gyges. In that myth, Gyges gains the power of invisibility through a magic ring and uses it to seduce a queen, kill a king, and seize the throne. In Plato's dialogue, the character of Glaucon argues that both a virtuous man and a rogue would be unable to resist such temptation: freed from fear of reprisal, human behavior would quickly turn criminal.

Rachels traces back to Glaucon's argument two persistent philosophical positions, both of which he considers to be in error. The first he terms Psychological Egoism: the belief that human beings act only from self-interest, and that even supposed altruism is purely to the advantage of the person performing the act. Alongside this, Rachels presents the related position of Ethical Egoism: not a claim about the nature of the human mind, but a normative ethical view about how people ought to act — a quasi-philosophical view that selfishness is wholly justifiable, always and everywhere. Before arguing why both positions are in error, Rachels notes wryly that if either view were actually correct, then "the majority of mankind is grossly deceived about what is, or ought to be, the case, where morals are concerned."

Rachels's Critique of Psychological Egoism

Rachels considers psychological egoism to be refuted on a daily basis — altruism happens all the time, and examples abound. He offers two possible objections that could be raised on behalf of psychological egoism in the face of these facts. The first is the claim that both the selfish person and the altruist are merely expressing their own volition: each is doing what they want, must want what they are doing, and is thus gratifying a desire rather than acting unselfishly.

Rachels considers this argument so poor as to be beneath serious consideration, were it not for the fact that many people appear persuaded by its glib sophistry. The difference between selfish and unselfish action, he takes pains to point out, can be discerned — at least partially — in the sense of moral obligation that accompanies many acts in which a person is clearly not acting out of personal gratification, whether for reasons of social conformism or simply to keep a promise. He also notes that psychological egoism handles the concept of unselfishness primarily by defining it out of existence: if volition and desire are treated as gratified in whatever a person does, then the entire concept of unselfishness is rendered nonsensical — yet most of us perceive unselfishness as intrinsically intelligible and as a common component in the complicated tangle of human motivations.

2 Locked Sections · 215 words remaining

The Argument from Volition and Its Flaws · 120 words

"Egoism's appeal lies in false simplicity"

Selfishness vs. Self-Interest: A Key Distinction · 95 words

"Self-interest and selfishness are not synonymous"

You’re 70% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.

130,000+ paper examples AI writing assistant Citation generator Cancel anytime

Key Concepts in This Paper

Psychological Egoism Ethical Egoism Ring of Gyges Moral Skepticism Altruism Self-Interest Volition Definitional Sleight-of-Hand Glaucon's Argument Selfishness