15 Egoism, Pleasure, and Indifference This chapter will present three ethical theories—namely, ethical egoism, hedonism, and Stoicism. Of the three, only Stoicism has any present-day following in the field of moral philosophy (e.g., see Becker 1998). 15.1 Stoicism In its time, particularly after the death of Alexander the Great, Stoicism was a very influential ethical philosophy. It dominated Roman thinking about moral philosophy until Christianity replaced it. Stoicism, as a philosophy, has been refined and developed over time from its initiation by Zeno (3rd century BCE), who is supposed to have lectured from a porch called a stoa, from which Stoicism derives its name. It is important to appreciate Greek history to understand how Stoicism developed. In summary, Phillip, the father of Alexander the Great, placed Greece under Macedonian rule, ending the regime of the Greek city-states (Prior 1991: 194–197). During his life, Alexander the Great extended the Macedonian empire and began the process that dispersed Greek language and civilization throughout the Mediterranean. The period of transition from Greek city-states to an empire is known as the Hellenistic period. These changes to Greek civilization were influential because Greek philosophy became widely available throughout the region. The city-states were replaced by imperial rule. This change seemed to make much of the work of Plato and Aristotle on ethics and politics obsolete because now philosophers began to see themselves as part of a single enterprise rather than as representing the individual city-states. The classical Greek philosophers shaped their view of virtue and the good life from the community of small city-states, but this form of social organization no longer existed. Questions were now asked about how virtue would apply in this new age. It was thought that the new social structure required a new philosophy. In addition, much of the daily activity of a citizen in classical Athens had changed with the onset of imperial rule. The political and social life of the city continued, but the close relationships between individuals as well as the social life of the city had changed. In response to these dislocations, new religions arose in an attempt to give individuals a new sense of citizenship. As well, some turned to philosophy instead of religion, and this led to the development of the schools of Epicureanism and Stoicism. The Stoics reacted to the collapse of the closed social system of the city-states by offering advice to individuals in what for them was a crumbling world. Although Stoicism is a complex moral theory, the basic principle advocated by Stoics is that one should learn to be indifferent to external differences. Many of the writings of the early and later Stoics have disappeared, but among those remaining are the writings of Epictetus, who began life as a Roman slave. He advocated a philosophy of indifference, believing that this practice would constitute ...

1. 15 Egoism, Pleasure, and Indifference
This chapter will present three ethical theories—namely, ethical
egoism, hedonism, and
Stoicism. Of the three, only Stoicism has any present-day
following in the field of moral
philosophy (e.g., see Becker 1998).
15.1 Stoicism
In its time, particularly after the death of Alexander the Great,
Stoicism was a very
influential ethical philosophy. It dominated Roman thinking
about moral philosophy until
Christianity replaced it. Stoicism, as a philosophy, has been
refined and developed over time
from its initiation by Zeno (3rd century BCE), who is supposed
to have lectured from a
porch called a stoa, from which Stoicism derives its name.
It is important to appreciate Greek history to understand how
Stoicism developed. In
summary, Phillip, the father of Alexander the Great, placed
Greece under Macedonian rule,
ending the regime of the Greek city-states (Prior 1991: 194–
197). During his life, Alexander
the Great extended the Macedonian empire and began the
process that dispersed Greek
language and civilization throughout the Mediterranean. The
period of transition from
Greek city-states to an empire is known as the Hellenistic
period. These changes to Greek

2. civilization were influential because Greek philosophy became
widely available throughout
the region. The city-states were replaced by imperial rule. This
change seemed to make
much of the work of Plato and Aristotle on ethics and politics
obsolete because now
philosophers began to see themselves as part of a single
enterprise rather than as
representing the individual city-states.
The classical Greek philosophers shaped their view of virtue
and the good life from the
community of small city-states, but this form of social
organization no longer existed.
Questions were now asked about how virtue would apply in this
new age. It was thought
that the new social structure required a new philosophy. In
addition, much of the daily
activity of a citizen in classical Athens had changed with the
onset of imperial rule. The
political and social life of the city continued, but the close
relationships between individuals
as well as the social life of the city had changed. In response to
these dislocations, new
religions arose in an attempt to give individuals a new sense of
citizenship. As well, some
turned to philosophy instead of religion, and this led to the
development of the schools of
Epicureanism and Stoicism.
The Stoics reacted to the collapse of the closed social system of
the city-states by offering
advice to individuals in what for them was a crumbling world.
Although Stoicism is a
complex moral theory, the basic principle advocated by Stoics
is that one should learn to be

3. indifferent to external differences. Many of the writings of the
early and later Stoics have
disappeared, but among those remaining are the writings of
Epictetus, who began life as a
Roman slave. He advocated a philosophy of indifference,
believing that this practice would
constitute progress for the individual. In the early period, Zeno
was succeeded as head of the
Stoic school by Cleanthes and later by Chrysippus (Prior 1991:
208). The best-known Stoic
philosophers today are the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius and
Epictetus, both of whom
focused on the presentation of Stoicism in a popular form.
The Stoics assumed that good or evil depends on the self, and
although others have power
over events that may affect you, if you can nevertheless be
indifferent to those events, others
will not be able to exercise power over you. Epictetus writes,
All existing things are either in our power or not in our power.
In our power are thought,
impulse, will to get and will to avoid, and, in a word,
everything which is our own doing.
Things not in our power include the body, property, reputation,
office, and, in a word,
everything which is not our own doing. (in Prior 1991: 209)
He further explains, “Virtue resides in the will—only the will is
good or bad.” Therefore, if
one has a good will, achieved by remaining indifferent to
external events, external events
will not destroy one’s character, and one will be a free person,
independent of the world. In
other words, for Stoics, virtue consists of learning to accept
whatever happens. Epictetus

4. urged a person to compel or force his or her will to conform to
events and to try not to force
events to conform to his or her will. This reflects the Stoic
teaching about living life in
accordance with nature (Prior 1991: 211); that is, we should live
in accordance with our own
human nature, and we should live consistently with the nature
of the universe of which we
are a part. Since our knowledge is inherently limited, we ought
to follow the guidance of our
own nature, but if things turn out other than we expect, we
should accept them as if they
turned out for the best (Sharples 1996: 101).
The ethics of the Stoics should be understood in the context of
their belief in predestination
—that is, all that happens in the world is fixed according to
some preconceived divine plan,
and nothing happens by chance (Prior 1991: 209). Stoics
believed that whatever happened
had a rational explanation and was for the best. For them, virtue
is achieved through a will
that operates in accordance with the happenings of nature.
Appreciating and accepting that
events have been fated allows one to avoid frustration and
despair in trying to alter those
events, and, conversely, it is the person who struggles to change
events who is not free.
Similarly, death should not be considered a bad thing because it
has been predestined by
God and therefore must be considered good. The aim is to
achieve a state of being where
one is not susceptible to passion or emotion (p. 212). One of the
main effects of Stoicism is
that it places the onus for becoming good or bad directly on the
individual, in the sense that

5. cultivating the appropriate frame of mind will lead to virtue.
Virtue alone is good.
According to Stoics, our health and wealth are not to be taken
into account, and we ought to
be indifferent to them (Sharples 1996: 102).
The Stoics believed in a commitment to serving the public. This
distinguishes Stoicism from
hedonism because the latter advocates a withdrawal from public
life and living with a circle
of like-minded friends (Sharples 1996: 87). The Romans, with
their tradition of public
service, admired this aspect of the Stoic philosophy (Prior 1991:
214). The goal of the Stoic
philosophy is, therefore, a life of complete rationality and of
developing oneself so that one
remains invulnerable to passion and emotion. The Stoics
depicted the person who lived such
a life as a “sage” and believed that philosophy was the means of
achieving this life. Stoicism
is a philosophy that advocates acceptance of life and events and
is pessimistic in tone. A
good example of this detached attitude appears in the following
passage from Epictetus:
When you go to visit some great man, prepare your mind by
thinking that you will not
find him in, that you will be shut out, that the doors will be
slammed in your face, and
that he will pay no heed to you. And if in spite of all this you
find it fitting for you to go,
go and bear what happens and never say to yourself “it was not
worth all this”; for that
shows a vulgar mind and one at odds with outward things. (in
Prior 1991: 219)

6. In contrasting Stoicism and hedonism, William Prior (1991)
points out that both assist in
providing a means for dealing with events beyond our control.
The Stoics explain that
certain things may not be within our power, and the strength of
both philosophies is that
they teach us “how to bear with dignity those events which truly
are beyond our control” (p.
223). In addition, both Stoics and hedonists would agree that
one cannot become just or
courageous if one behaves in an unjust or cowardly manner
(Sharples 1996: 82). In other
words, character cannot be separated from action.
15.2 Hedonism
Traditionally, hedonism has been expressed as the view that
“pleasure alone is intrinsically
good,” “pleasure is the only thing worth seeking for its own
sake,” and “pleasure is the
good” (Feldman 1997: 80). Hedonism is the doctrine that
pleasure is the sole good. The
foremost exponent of hedonism was the Greek philosopher
Epicurus (see the “Epicurus”
Closer Look box). His name appears in the form of the English
words epicure and
epicurean, meaning a person whose main enjoyment is derived
from exotic and carefully
prepared food and wine. In fact, this connotation is far removed
from the philosophy
expounded by Epicurus himself. He advocated living moderately
yet pleasurably and
considered pleasure to be the good for which humans aim.
Nevertheless, he also appreciated
that pursuit of pleasure might itself result in pain (Prior 1991:
200). For example, if, in

7. seeking pleasure, individuals drink to excess, they will suffer
headaches and stomachaches.
Therefore, in Epicurus’s view, the proper way to live is to live
“pleasantly” and at the same
time not suffer any of the undesirable effects of that pleasant
living. Epicurus stated that the
aim of human existence was “health of the body and tranquility
of mind” (p. 201). He did
not endorse a life of endless pleasure or sensuality because by
pleasure he meant “the
absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul.”
Tranquility is attained by
philosophical understanding and through practical wisdom. The
former teaches that death
should not be feared and the latter advocates living virtuously
(p. 203).
There are two forms of hedonism—psychological hedonism and
ethical hedonism. The
psychological form suggests that people pursue pleasure and
only pleasure in their lives and
that all their activities are directed toward achieving pleasure
and avoiding pain (Feldman
1997: 109). Ethical hedonism is the view that not only do
people seek pleasure, but they
also ought to seek pleasure because pleasure alone is good.
According to psychological
hedonism, every action is motivated by a search for pleasure,
whereas ethical hedonism
goes one step further, seeing the pursuit of pleasure as
normative. Hedonism in both its
forms can be criticized for attempting to provide a single
explanation for every human act.
In other words, in psychological hedonism every act is
supposedly motivated by a desire for
pleasure.

8. According to proponents of ethical hedonism, the question of
how one ought to live is
answered by the contention that the good life consists of a life
of pleasure and that a person
ought to act in such a way as to acquire pleasure. As already
noted, Epicurus attempted to
find pleasures that did not produce painful consequences,
having recognized that some
pleasures might be accompanied by pain or might produce pain.
For example, some find
that smoking cocaine gives pleasure, but it will also produce
severe adverse physical and
mental effects if continued beyond a certain point.
In practice, it seems difficult to separate pleasure from pain in
the way Epicurus advocated.
For example, friendship, a pleasure, can be accompanied by
depression and sadness at the
death of a close friend. It is difficult, therefore, to see how
ethical hedonism can function as
a guide for behavior in our daily lives because advising a person
to seek pleasure is often
also advice to seek pain. In addition, although the notion that
people ought to conduct
themselves in such ways as to acquire pleasure seems
reasonable and plausible, it also
seems to violate our commonsense views about how we ought to
act. Generally, people feel
that sometimes it is acceptable to act to gain pleasure, but few
would regard this as the sole
objective in life. For example, we frequently have to fulfill
obligations, even if we receive
little or no pleasure in the process.
A Closer Look

9. Epicurus
Epicurus was born in 341 BCE on the Greek island of Somas,
but his father was an
Athenian. He moved to Athens and established a school there in
307 BCE called “The
Garden” because it met in the garden of his home. Unusually,
women and slaves were
permitted to become members of the school. Epicurus lived and
taught at The Garden
until his death in 271 BCE. He is said to have written over 300
scrolls, but only a tiny
number have survived. It is thought that many of his works were
destroyed because
they were considered adverse to Christianity. Epicurus’s main
aim was to establish a
philosophy concerned with the attainment of happiness. He
thought that the main
constraint to happiness was the fear and unease caused by
religion.
SOURCE: Prior 1991: 198.
15.3 Ethical Egoism
Typically, an egoist is self-centered, inconsiderate, unfeeling,
and a pursuer of the good
things in life, whatever may be the cost to others. Egoists think
only of themselves, and if
they think about others at all, it is merely as a means to their
own ends. Essentially, egoism
involves putting one’s own well-being above that of others
(Baier 1991: 197). It argues that
the right actions are those that promote self-interest, and the
wrong actions are those that

10. detract from self-interest (Hinman 1998: 138). This stands in
contrast to most other systems
of morality, which recommend that we ought to act unselfishly,
that we ought to take other
people’s interests into account, and that we should care for,
rather than harm, other people
(Rachels 1999: 70). Lawrence Hinman (1998) argues that, in
fact, egoism does not amount
to a moral theory at all.
Psychological Egoism
There are two theories of egoism: psychological egoism and
ethical egoism. The former
theorizes that all persons are egoists in the sense that our
actions are always motivated by
our own best interests. Proponents of psychological egoism
suspect that altruistic
explanations of behavior are superficial and without substance
(Rachels 1999: 71). In other
words, they contend that when a person’s motives are properly
analyzed, although it may
seem that he or she is acting unselfishly—for example, by doing
volunteer work in a
hospital or church or by saving a child from a burning house—
his or her actual motives
would tell a different story. For example, the hospital volunteer
may be making amends for
some misdeed in his or her past or may be trying to build a good
résumé, and the person
saving the child may be motivated by a desire to be recognized
as a hero. This approach can
be criticized as being based on the assumption that we will
never find the real explanation
for someone’s behavior until we have discovered an appropriate
egotistical motivation

11. (Baier 1991: 199). In other words, a way can always be found to
set aside acts of altruism
and self-sacrifice and see in them a self-centered motive.
However, if one is to interpret all
acts in terms of their lack of altruism, one must surely
distinguish between acts that are done
solely out of selfish motives and those done out of a motive to
help others but that also
produce feelings of satisfaction and enhance our self-
perceptions as “good persons.” Surely,
one has more moral worth than the other.
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was a believer in psychological
egoism, and he tried to give a
more general account of it by listing motives and showing how
each could be read as
egoistical acts or intentions (Rachels 1999: 72). For example, in
relation to the motive of
charity, Hobbes concluded that it constituted the pleasure one
takes in demonstrating one’s
powers; that is, charitable persons confirm to themselves and
others that they are more
capable than others. Not only can these individuals take care of
themselves, but they also
have a surplus available for those who are not as accomplished.
In demonstrating charity,
they are really emphasizing their own superiority.
Another example is pity. Here, Hobbes concluded that the real
reason we feel pity for
others’ misfortunes is that we are reminded that the same thing
might happen to us. As
James Rachels notes, psychological egoism appeals to a “certain
cynicism in us, a suspicion
that people are not nearly as noble as they seem” (1999: 73). As
he points out, it is not

12. possible to prove psychological egoism because the theory
shows only that it is possible to
interpret all motives in an egotistical manner.
Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism claims that promoting one’s own greatest good
is always to act in
accordance with reason and morality (Baier 1991: 201); that is,
everyone ought to pursue his
or her own self-interest exclusively (Rachels 1999: 83).
Whereas psychological egoism is a
theory about how people actually behave, ethical egoism is a
theory about how we ought to
behave. It says that we have no duty other than to do what is
best for ourselves (p. 84). It is
important to understand that ethical egoism does not advocate
promoting one’s own
interests in addition to the interests of others. Rather, it stresses
that the only duty we have is
to promote our own interest. However, at the same time, ethical
egoism does not require us
to avoid actions that might help others. Therefore, if a
particular act would benefit our own
self-interest as well as the interests of others, that act will not
be considered contrary to the
goals of ethical egoism.
Those who support ethical egoism argue that if we all look after
our own interests, it is more
likely that we will all be better off. In other words, if we want
to do the best for others, we
should not act altruistically because, for example, while we are
fully aware of our own
individual wants and needs, we are not completely aware of
others’ needs. This line of

13. reasoning suggests that we should not set out to act
altruistically because we are not in a
good position to do so. Some also insist that looking out for
others intrudes into their
privacy and that giving charity degrades others and robs them of
dignity (Rachels 1999: 85).
Ayn Rand, for example, proposed that ethical egoism is the only
philosophy that respects the
integrity of human life. Rand argued that altruism is a
destructive idea, devaluing the
individual (Hinman 1998: 149; Rachels 1999: 86), because it
claims that one’s own interests
ought to be sacrificed for another’s interests. It is in this sense
that altruism does not value
the individual. In contrast, Rand suggested that ethical egoism
does affirm the value of the
individual and is the only moral position to do so.
Rachels (1999) explains that although philosophers have
rejected ethical egoism, it is
nevertheless a theory that has been returned to again and again.
He gives three typical
arguments that reject this doctrine. The first is that ethical
egoism does not assist in
resolving conflicts of interest but rather exacerbates them (p.
91). The second is that it is
logically inconsistent, and the third is that ethical egoism is
unacceptably arbitrary in the
same way that racism is arbitrary (p. 94). Like racism, it
advocates dividing people into
groups where the interests of one group are considered to count
more than the interests of
others. This is contrary to the general principle that we can only
justify treating people
differently when there is a factual difference between them that
is relevant and justifies a

14. difference in treatment.
In the same way, ethical egoism contends that we should each
divide the world into two
categories of people—ourselves and the rest—and that we
should regard the interests of the
first group as more important than those of the second group.
However, this division, and
therefore ethical egoism itself, is quite arbitrary because there
is no general difference
between one’s self and others. An additional difficulty for
ethical egoism is suggested by
Hinman (1998: 152): While ethical egoists can have
acquaintances, it is not clear that they
are able to have deep friendships with others because such
friendships are usually founded
on the basis of a mutual concern for each other’s welfare, and
ethical egoism seems to
preclude that concern. Hinman also suggests that ethical egoists
suffer from moral
insensitivity and an unwillingness to help others (p. 154).
Compassion and concern for
others is completely opposed to self-interest, and therefore
these values are prohibited by
this philosophy. This means that ethical egoists would respond
to issues such as world
hunger by claiming that starving people should be helped only
when it is in their own self-
interest to do so. This seems rather implausible and callous.
15.4 Applying the Theory of Ethical Egoism
Case Study 15.1
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Banks.9118.18.1/sectio
ns/navpoint-134#s9781506326030.i1887) illustrates how
ethical egoism can be applied to an ethical dilemma within the

15. criminal justice system.
In resolving what may be an ethical dilemma, Harry will follow
the process of resolving an
ethical dilemma set out in Chapter 1
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Banks.9118.18.1/sectio
ns/navpoint-
9#s9781506326030.i920) .
1. Is Harry faced with an ethical dilemma?
Harry is faced with the dilemma of whether to use informal
means to reinforce his
authority over George or to use the formal inmate disciplinary
process.
2. What are the facts and circumstances of the incident?
Harry needs to review in his mind the facts and circumstances.
3. What are the facts relevant to the decision he has to make?
What are his own values
about the issue, and what are the values of his workplace about
such an issue?
The relevant facts are as follows:
Harry and George have a history of clashes over Harry’s
exercise of his authority.
Harry feels he needs to demonstrate to both inmates and other
staff that he is
always in control, and he sees this as essential for his work as a
correctional
officer. In his view, those who demonstrate the most power in
the prison
environment will prevail.
Harry has always used formal methods to control George before,

16. but it seems to
him that this approach has not changed George’s attitude toward
him.
Harry wants his coworkers to see that he can control George
because this is
expected by the prison officer culture, which requires that
officers never show
leniency toward inmates and that they provide unquestioning
support to
coworkers, especially in the face of inmate resistance.
Harry knows that informal methods are sometimes more
effective with inmates
than formal processes.
4. What ethical theories does he call to mind to assist him in
resolving the dilemma?
In this case, Harry will apply ethical egoism to the dilemma.
5. What are Harry’s available courses of action?
Harry can either follow the formal disciplinary process, or he
may use informal
methods to punish George.
6. Harry will make his decision after applying, in this case, the
ethical egoism approach
to each alternative course of action, and he will choose the
course of action that is the
most ethically appropriate for him under ethical egoism.
A process for assessing an ethical dilemma from an ethical
egoism perspective is set
out in the “Ethical Egoism Evaluation of Ethical Dilemmas”
Closer Look boxes.
Applications of these criteria are shown in the “Applying

17. Ethical Egoism” Closer
Look box.
Recalling that egoists are self-centered, inconsiderate, unfeeling
pursuers of the good things
in life, whatever may be the cost to others, and that egoists also
put themselves above the
well-being of others, it is hard to advocate this approach to
ethical decision-making as an
ethical approach at all. It contrasts with almost all other
systems of morality, which take the
view that we ought to act unselfishly, that we ought to take
other people’s interests into
account, and that we should care for, rather than harm, other
people (Rachels 1999: 70).
Case Study 15.1 Giving Your Own Punishment
Harry is a corrections officer at the Grim Correctional Center.
He has a reputation among
his coworkers for being very strict with inmates and always
being ready to issue
violations for the slightest breach of prison rules. One of the
inmates he has charge over
on his wing is George, a career criminal and experienced
prisoner. George and Harry do
not like each other, and George often tries to challenge Harry’s
authority by breaking
prison rules or threatening to break them. In the past, Harry has
reacted to this resistance
by issuing many citations for rule violations and having George
dealt with through the
inmate disciplinary process. Harry has now reached the stage
where he is tired of having
his authority questioned by George and has decided to show him
who is really the boss.

18. He decides that he will use informal methods to punish George
and reinforce his own
authority over him. One Friday, Harry inspects George’s cell
and finds that George has
two more pictures in his cell than is permitted by the rules,
according to his inmate
classification. Harry considers whether or not he should seize
on this violation to use
informal means to impose his will on George or whether he
should follow proper prison
procedures for dealing with rule violations. He knows that
prison officers can use various
informal ways of controlling prisoners, even though the rules do
not allow these methods
to be used. Examples would include not telling an inmate about
a scheduled visitor
appointment, withholding toilet paper, or shutting off the hot
water to an inmate’s cell.
He decides to think about a possible informal way to deal with
George. In his mind, he
formulates the following plan. Instead of issuing a disciplinary
report for the extra
pictures, Harry will not unlock George’s cell the next morning
during the daily prison
routine and will secretly place a “keep lock” tag on George’s
cell door. This tag will
indicate to other correctional officers that George is to remain
locked in his cell and will
suggest that a formal order has been given to this effect. This
also means that George will
remain locked in the cell until he can get someone’s attention
and complain to the deputy
superintendent, who will not be on duty until Monday morning.
Harry now has to decide
whether to act formally or informally.

19. A Closer Look
Ethical Egoism Evaluation of Ethical Dilemmas
1. What act would most benefit me?
2. How will my self-interest best be promoted?
3. The most ethical course of action is that which is best for me.
4. Will others benefit from what would most benefit me?
A Closer Look
Applying Ethical Egoism
1. What act would most benefit me?
In considering whether to use formal or informal methods to
punish George, Harry
must consider which action will give him the most benefit. If he
takes a formal
approach, he knows from past experience that George will
continue to resist his efforts
to bring George under his control. He feels this will make him
look bad in the eyes of
other inmates as well as his coworkers. If he takes an informal
approach toward
controlling George, something he has never done before, he
thinks it might be more
effective in establishing his control over George. He also thinks
he would look better
in the eyes of his colleagues if the informal approach works.
2. How will my self-interest best be promoted?

20. Harry believes his self-interest will be best served by gaining
control over George, and
therefore, the question is which method, informal or formal,
will give him that control
over the inmate. He is aware that formal methods have not
worked so far, and his
inclination is that informal methods will best serve his self-
interest.
3. The most ethical action is that which is best for me.
Harry thinks that what is best for him is to adopt the best
method to finally get control
over George. Again, he has to decide based on his past
experience whether formal or
informal methods of disciplining George will be best for him.
He also has to consider
whether the act of breaking prison rules by applying informal
disciplinary methods
will have a negative affect on him or on his career if his actions
are discovered. In this
case, he believes that his actions will not be discovered by the
administration because
the prison officer subculture will ensure that his informal
methods of punishment are
not revealed to his supervisors. Even if they are discovered, he
believes he can claim
he just made a mistake.
4. Will others benefit from the action that would most benefit
me?
Ethical egoism does not require that one choose an act that will
benefit others. It only
requires that an act benefit oneself. However, if an act also
benefits others in the

21. process of benefiting oneself, that act is still considered
ethically correct under an
ethical egoist approach. In this case, Harry thinks that gaining
control over George
using informal methods will also benefit other prison officers
because, if he is
successful, they will be able to control George more effectively
as well and will not
have to resort to informal means of controlling him. He also
feels that after his
demonstration of officer superiority all inmates will show more
respect for the prison
officers generally in the future.
In all the circumstances, it is clear that the appropriate course
of action for Harry,
applying the ethical egoist perspective, is to take informal
action against George
because that will best serve his own self-interest.
SOURCE: Glover 1999.
SUMMARY
Stoicism, ethical egoism, and hedonism have very little
following among moral
philosophers, even though egoism and hedonism celebrate self-
gratification in ways that
seem to accord with the values of modern consumer society.
However, in ethical terms, they
appear to have little to offer.
Stoicism is a complex ethical theory founded, like virtue ethics,
during a particular period in
history when one civilization was being replaced with another
and when philosophical

22. issues were generated by societal change. Stoics argue that a
person should learn to become
indifferent to external differences and should cultivate a life of
indifference. Essentially, it
asks that we accept that some things are within our power to
change and influence, and
others are not. Stoicism tries to persuade us that we can achieve
a good will by remaining
indifferent to external events and by learning to accept things
we cannot change. This is
consistent with the Stoic belief in predestination, which
emphasizes that nothing happens by
chance, that whatever happens has a rational explanation, and
that whatever happens is
always for the best. Stoics argue that if we try to resist events
that have been predetermined,
we simply generate frustration and despair within ourselves. In
some respects, Stoicism
shares the concern of virtue ethics with individual character
because it argues that
developing the appropriate stoic frame of mind will lead us to
virtue.
Hedonism advocates the pursuit of pleasure as the sole good.
There are two types of
hedonism: psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism.
Psychological hedonism assumes
that we all look for pleasure in our lives and that all our actions
are aimed at achieving
pleasure and avoiding pain. Ethical hedonism is the moral
version of hedonism, asserting
that people not only seek pleasure but also ought to seek
pleasure because pleasure alone is
good. Quite simply, the answer to the question “How ought I to
act?” is answered by
hedonists through their contention that the good life is a life of

23. pleasure and that a person
ought to act in ways that will achieve pleasure. However, it is
difficult to accept that this
notion can form the sole basis for deciding how to act ethically
in our lives.
Ethical egoists try to persuade us that the right action is one
that promotes our own self-
interest, and typically, egoists advocate the pursuit of the good
things in life regardless of
the feelings or concerns of others. Like hedonism, egoism is
divided into two forms—
namely, psychological egoism and ethical egoism.
Psychological egoism suggests that all
humans are motivated and act according to egoist concerns and
denies all altruistic
explanations of behavior, instead contending that apparently
unselfish acts are always
carried out for egotistical reasons. Ethical egoists claim that
morality and reason are served
only by promoting one’s own greatest good and self-interest and
that we ought to behave in
a way that is best for ourselves. This does not mean that we
must avoid actions that might
help others but rather that we are duty bound to stress the
promotion of our own interests.
Among the many criticisms of ethical egoism is the fact that it
is quite arbitrary and
resembles racism in its regard for the interests of one group as
being more important than
the interests of others. That is, it divides the world into others
and ourselves, and it
subordinates all other interests to our own interests.
Additionally, it would seem that ethical

24. 9/23/19, 11(30 PM
Page 1 of 1