Review Questions:

1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised from the story?

     "According to the legend, Gyges of Lydia was a shepherd in the service of King Candaules of Lydia. After an earthquake, a cave was revealed in a mountainside where Gyges was feeding his flock. Entering the cave, Gyges discovered that it was in fact the tomb of an enthroned corpse who wore a golden ring, which Gyges pocketed." More

The fact that he killed the king is something. Why did he needed to kill the King or wanted to be King?

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

Psychological Egoism is where men usually are selfish in everything that they do. Not to mention, this is the only thing that they do. On the other hand, Ethical Egoism is are usually men who do things that are only interesting to them regardless of what may be. They don't care, they just do their thing. So basically, the difference is contrasting where one is selfish and one doesn't care.

3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them?

The first argument is "the agents merely doing what he most wants to do". Therefore, this is a unselfish act. He just does what he wants. On the second argument: Since so-called unselfish actions always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the agent, and since this sense of satisfaction is a pleasant state of consciousness, it follows that the point of action is really to achieve a pleasant state of consciousness, rather than to bring about any good for others. Therefore, the action is "unselfish" only at a superficial level of analysis.

4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?

The first one is the confusion of selfishness with self interest. The second one is confusion of the assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other-regarding motives. And the third confusion is the common but false asssumption that a concern for ones's own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.

5. State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why does Rachels accept the argument?

This brings us to perhaps the most popular "refutation" of ethical egoism current among philosopher writers the arument that ethical egoism is at the bottom of inconsistent because it cannot be universalized. Rachels thinks that this would be unwarranted because he can show how ethical egoism can be maintained consistently.

6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why we should help others? How can egoist reply?

Becauase it is not right. We do things for a reason and as human beings, we do good things in a way that we think that we can benifit from. We don't usually do things that we won't benifit from. The welfare of human beings is something that we value and not for the sake of something else.

Discussion Questions:

1. Has Rachels answered the questions raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly his answer?

Yes, by explaining to us psychological and ethical egoism.

2. Are genuine egoist rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others, even people they don’t know?

Yes, it is rare. Genuine egoist are people who cares for others before even thinking of themselves. They are not selfish.

3. Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of others and never in one’s own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not?

I think that is being selfish to yourself by putting others before you. Yes it is good but doing it to some stranger doesn't make sense. Doing it for a wife is more apporpriate.