The document outlines two types of egoism: psychological egoism, which claims we always act in self-interest even if unconsciously, and ethical egoism, which claims we should always act in self-interest. It notes that using psychological egoism to argue for ethical egoism commits a logical fallacy, as it does not follow that something we do we should do. It also discusses arguments for and against ethical egoism, and poses questions about whether we should consider self-interest or others' interests in our actions.

1. Egoism

2. There are two types of egoism outlined in
your text.
 Psychological egoism is the claim that any
time we act, whether we realize it or not,
we act out of self-interest. This is a
descriptive claim.
 Ethical egoism is the claim that any time
we act we should act out of self-interest.
This is a normative claim.

3.  Ifwe try to argue for ethical egoism by
citing psychological egoism as support, we
fall into an is-ought logical fallacy.
 Inother words, it does not make logical
sense to argue that we should do
something we are already doing.

4. Psychological egoism can be a persuasive
argument, especially if we consider whether
a seemingly unselfish act was (consciously
or unconsciously) done for a selfish
reason, such as praise, better
reputation, possibility of reward, etc.

5. Ethical egoism is also an interesting claim,
and may be supported by the argument that
we cannot help someone else unless we
have taken care of ourselves first.
 Themain argument against an ethical
egoist position is that we are social
animals and are incapable of living
completely selfish lives.

6.  Should we act from self-interest or should we
consider the interest of others? Who are the
others? Family? Community? Nation?
Humanity in entirety?
 Is it possible to act in a wholly unselfish
manner?
 Does acting morally require being able to take
another person’s point of view?
 Are we essentially social animals? Does this
designation have any bearing on morality?