I have been thinking a bit about the difference between acting so as to fulfill a desire vs. acting in one's self-interest. The problem I have been having is that I can not make up my mind as to whether they are the same or not, though I will say that I lean toward thinking that they are different. I lean this way because it would seems that someone who desired to commit suicide who in doing so would fulfill his desire would nonetheless have acted against his self-interest. But then, I could imagine another way of understanding self-interest whereby even suicide would count as acting for it. I think that it may depend on whether self-interest is understood as subjective and is something like the conjunction of an actors goals or if it is understood as objective and is something like that which is 'good' for the actor.
However, it seems to me that both of the options I just gave have some problems. It seems ridiculous to think that acting on any desire at all is acting out of self-interest (what about the desire to help the needy or to sacrifice oneself for an unknown person in need). And, on the other hand, it is very difficult to figure out what is 'good' for the actor let alone why the actor should pursue it if he did not want to (even if we figured out what the good is it would not move someone like Gyges to live differently if he did not want to).
So, I am not sure what to think, though I do have a new idea which may be a good one. My thought is that if we were to take a sort of middle path on the question of what one's self-interest is we may be able to solve the problem. We could accept the subjective view of self-interest but add an objective aspect which would be how strongly one desires certain goals. Thus, one's self-interest is a product of one's own desires but there is an objective criteria for examining whether or not one has acted in his self-interest. Suppose that I have a weak desire to buy a motor boat and a strong desire to buy a car and then suppose that I go off and buy a motor boat. One can say that because I wanted to buy the car more I have acted against my self-interest even though I have fulfilled one of my desires.
I like this conception of self-interest and, if it is accepted, I think that it can help with showing where Gyges goes wrong. We can say that he, like all other human beings, has as his strongest desire the desire to be happy (surely, however, this is something to be debated) (and I mean the Aristotelian or Taylor type version of happiness) and that by acting on his nasty desires he is leaving unfulfilled his greatest desire. Thus, he is not acting for his self-interest but is rather acting against it. What do you think of this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Aaron - I don't have much sympathy for what you call the subjective version of self-interest. I would say that even though there are problems in figuring out what is really good for someone, still it is an objective matter. Think of smoking. I may really, really want to smoke but if it damages my lungs (hence shorting my life, etc.) then it is not in my interest to smoke, not good for me to smoke.
At the same time, as you say, someone might clearly see that something is say against his good and yet still want it, again think of smoking.
On the side of your idea: it does seem right to me that (other things equal) it would be irrational for me to pursue something I want less at the expense of something I want more. But the actual account of self interest is a somewhat different issue I think. And I am afraid I don't see how your revision would work for that. Again think of smoking. How does the fact that I really, really want to smoke make it good for me to smoke?
On your Gyges ring point: one thing you would need to do is argue that getting the money, etc. would not aid in his pursuit of happiness. That is going to be hard if you start out thinking of ol' Gyges as poor, etc. There is also the issue (a distinct one I think) of whether one's own happiness is actually part of one's interest. Maybe 'self-interest' is a more 'minimal' concept than happiness. It could be that having health, food, clothing, shelter, etc are in my interest but after those 'basics' it might be an open question whether it is 'in my interest' to be happy.
Post a Comment