Advanced Search

If the nature of a man is to be egocentric, is this person capable of doing true good or is he always going to be egocentric and therefore evil even if his deeds are good and he means them to be good? Is it possible to escape this nature, deny it, and act for good because of the good itself or just impossible because such person would always try to be good just because his ego demands it?

Your remarks raise some of the oldest questions in moral philosophy: What is human nature? How should the relationship between morality and an individual's good or interest to be understood? What motivates the morally good person to act morally? It should be said, though, that your reasoning seems to germinate from a fair number of controversial assumptions. First, you condition your first question on our being "egocentric." Whether we are in fact egocentric — where I take this to mean that we necessarily act to advance what we believe to be in our best interests — has long been debated by philosophers. Hobbes arguably thought so, but many philosophers have disagreed. One famous contemporary critique of this kind of egocentrism ("psychological egoism") was put forth by Joel Feinberg. (http://web.mit.edu/holton/www/courses/moralpsych/feinberg.pdf) Feinberg in effect argues that psychological egoism either rests on a tautology (that everything a person does stems from her own motives doesn't entail that...