FIrst post/ psychological egoism

Following suit of some of my peers I have decided to start keeping a blog. Hopefully someone, somewhere will read this and maybe get something out of it.


This year I am taking a course called Ethics& Values. It is basically an introductory philosophy course. We've only had 3 or so classes so far, but what i have learned thus far, especially one concept, has been on my mind since we talked about it. that concept is psychological egoism. Now, this concept basically means that that every act humans commit is based in self interest. This is not too say these acts cannot be beneficial too others, but they are inherently for the benefit of the self. One example of this is charity. According to psycholigical egoism the main motivation for giving money would be too make yourself feel better. You might feel good about giving the money away, or you might be trying to make yourself look better in the eyes of others, but regardless you are still giving money, in part, for yourself. Granted that this act can still be of huge benefit too others it is still for ones self benefit.
This notion brings up ideas of two huge concepts, selfishness and selflessness. One would say that it would be selfless for one to donate money to a charity, that you are helping others with nothing beneficial coming back to you. But if someone was to suggest that the donation was made for the benefactor to feel better, if there was any notion of selfishness involved, the act would be frowned upon, if even slightly. Here is where psychological egoism kicks in. With psychological egoism involved selfishness and selflessness do not exist. There would be no such thing as doing something purely for the benefit of others and if ever act benefited the actor, as it were, selfishness would also be irelevent.
Some of you may have seen the article in the San Francisco Chronicle or other newspapers the other day about the young man in Iraq who jumped on top of a grenade to save his men. Some of might think that his act was selfless, but according to psycholigical egoism it was not. Several things may have flashed in his head in the several seconds when he saw the grenade, realised its impications and thought how to act. He might have thought about the medal of honor he might be awarded, how he would be remembered as a hero, or simply, on a more biological, instinctual level, how for the greater good it would be better to save the rest of his men and create more opportunity for the growth of the human species.
The suggestion that this act may anger, astound or just interest some of you. I know that if this suggestion was made on national television there would be a complete uproar. I would be cursed for suggesting that his man even began to think about himself before saving his men and that his act was purely to save his fellow officers. I am by no means trying toou marginalize what the man did. I doubt whether I would have that courage in that situation and more power to him for being in that god forsaken war in the first place (I won't even get started with that). The point I am trying to make here is that people hold altruism (putting others before one's self at such high value. I find it intriguing that we as humans are so willing to beleive that we are by nature good and we want to defend our virtues, as little is held in higher esteem than "acting purely for the benefit of others" especially when that entails martyrdom.
I wish could still believe that selfless acts exist, but after having heard about psychological egoism I can apply a self benefiting motive to just about anything. I suggest that you take a look at the world around and at yourself and see if you can find something similar to what I have found. Please respond, I would like to know what you all think and for God's sakes prove me wrong.