Ethical and Psychological Egoism: The Debate

In the field of modern ethics two specific theories stand out among them as the most supported, persecuted, debated, and overall controversial theories. Both psychological egoism and ethical egoism have been thoroughly analyzed and dissected by a number of both contemporary and pre-contemporary philosophers. The result of these studies and extensive works of literature on the subject matter will begin to explain what exactly each theory is, its applications in real word situations, and its support and critiques. Additionally, the two theories will be discussed in terms of differences between them, contrasts in the doctrines of motivation for each, and the differences between the key words behind each theory. That being said, its time to introduce the first of the two. 

Psychological egoism is generally thought of as the more extreme of the two. Although both deal with ones ego, psychological egoism takes a somewhat extreme stance on how our thinking (motives) actually work. Psychological egoism states that all human acts are selfish acts at their roots, meaning that no action however altruistic it may look actually altruistic. As a result even the most seemingly altruistic actions are motivated wholly under the basis that we will get something out of our helping someone else that will ultimately help us better ourselves. It goes even further to state that if a choice must be made between two things, one will decide in favor of the action that furthers our own agenda and our good. In simpler terms all actions are, at root, selfish ones. A prime example of how this theory works can be simply put as such: if I find a wallet and I keep the money, I do so from self-interest. Nevertheless, if I find a wallet and I return the money, I also do so from self-interest (because in the second case, my sense of honor or honesty is worth more to me than the money in the wallet). (Philosophy 102: Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry).