Ethical Egoism Introduction

Normative ethics = the branch of philosophy that asks, “What ought I to do?”
Ethical Egoism (EE) is proposed as one answer to that question.
Key framing question of the lecture: What is the morally right thing for you to do?

Any satisfying moral theory must fill the blank in the generic claim:
- $\text{One ought to do } a \; \text{ iff } \; ?$
Sample (inadequate) attempts to fill the blank:
- “ $a$ satisfies your desires.”
- “ $a$ is the best possible action overall.”
- “ $a$ benefits Professor Velasquez.” (obviously self-serving and unsatisfactory.)
Goal: find the correct condition that makes the ought-claim true.

While driving to work you witness a pedestrian struck by a car; the car speeds off.
You initially think the victim is someone you know, stop, and discover it is a stranger.
Victim is critically injured and will die without assistance.
Victim is carrying a bag full of cash; no eyewitnesses.
Two immediate variables:
1. Helping (or not) the victim.
2. Stealing (or not) the money.
Four concrete options emerge:
1. Help without stealing.
2. Steal without helping.
3. Help and steal.
4. Neither help nor steal.
Morally charged question: What do you ought to do?

“You ought always to act out of self-interest.”
Emphasizes that what is good for you is morally significant—just as the good of parents, siblings, neighbors, etc., is significant.
EE takes the self-interest component very seriously—possibly more seriously than most people expect.

Ethical Egoism (normative claim):
- Contains the moral word ought.
- Claims what you should do.
Psychological Egoism (descriptive claim):
- States you will (in fact) act out of self-interest.
- Lacks moral language; purely empirical/psychological.
Distinction matters:
- EE ⇒ You ought to steal the money if that maximally serves your interest.
- PE ⇒ You will steal the money if that maximally serves your interest.

$\boxed{\text{One ought to do } a \; \text{ iff } \; a \text{ is the action that most promotes one’s self-interest}.}$
This fills the blank in the specification problem.
Expressed symbolically (for any set of alternatives ${a,b,c,\dots}$ ):
- $O(a) \iff \forall b\,(\text{SI}(a) \ge \text{SI}(b))$
  where $\text{SI}(x)$ = degree to which action $x$ promotes your self-interest.

To determine what you ought to do, EE instructs:
1. Compute the expected self-interest payoff of each option (1–4).
2. Identify the option with the greatest payoff.
3. That option = the morally right action for you.
EE does not tell us in advance that stealing is right; it says: whatever maximizes your interest is right—might be help-and-steal, might not.
The lecture pauses here and tasks you to:
- Pick the option you think maximizes self-interest.
- Present supporting reasons/argumentation.

Everyone tends to agree that others’ good (parents, siblings, neighbors) is morally relevant; EE insists the agent’s good is equally relevant—possibly decisive.
EE’s conclusion can be surprising or counter-intuitive in certain cases (e.g., condoning theft if undetected and highly beneficial).
Distinction between self-interest and desire-satisfaction:
- EE speaks of objective benefit to oneself, not merely momentary desires.
EE is a normative ethical theory, to be evaluated like Utilitarianism, Kantianism, etc.

Upcoming material will provide:
- Arguments supporting Ethical Egoism (rationality, individuality, etc.).
- Arguments against Ethical Egoism (incoherence, conflict, public-goods problems, etc.).
Understanding the hit-and-run example now will anchor later critiques and defenses.

Be able to explain—in your own words—the difference between acting in self-interest and ought to act in self-interest.
Recreate the four options and rank them according to your expected self-interest.
Consider whether EE can handle scenarios where long-term self-interest conflicts with short-term gain.
Reflect on whether the moral importance of others’ good can ever outweigh your own good under EE.