James Rachels is an American philosopher who specializes in ethics; more specifically, he is a utilitarian (meaning he believes in the greater good for the greatest number). This is a rather simple summary of his position, which is more intricate, but it will suffice for the purposes of the topic at hand. Rachels is critical of a philosophy in opposition to utilitarianism that’s referred to as “ethical egoism,” and it’s supporters believe that an ethical life involves always doing what is in one’s own best interests.
First, it’s beneficial to clarify something. Ethical egoism believes that if you help someone because it makes you feel good, that is altruism. Ethical egoism does not revolve around helping others at all. Instead, it argues that you should help others only when you serve to gain something. For instance, they may help you later, you may become popular with the community, or you might be able to gain some other form of advantage by appearing charitable.
In many ways, Rachels attacks ethical egoism from a psychological and ethical perspective. He asks the question as to why one shouldn’t harm others and implies that the answer is “because doing so will harm others.” Rachels points out that the pain and pleasure we feel exists similarly in others. So by the same reasons we care about ourselves, we should consider the interests of others. He does not refute the egoist who claims they don’t accept his explanation. He simply says there is no further method of convincing them through debate. In many ways, he may be implying that normal people will understand the connection between one’s own suffering and those of others. Egoists are either logical but failing to embrace their natural humanity and capacity to care, or they are simply part of a minority of people who simply care little or nothing for others. Psychologically speaking, most people care about others at least to some degree.
Rachels points out that genuine egoists are rare, and most people “at minimum” have attach real value to the happiness of their friends and family. They do not merely manipulate everyone in their lives for their own good. Rachels believes our capacity to recognize the similar standing of others and “care” about their interests is a psychological advantage and essential to what makes us human. While philosophically speaking he is as much arguing on sentiment than on logical grounds, his position is compelling because these sentimental aspects of our humanity near-universal human values.
