Dear Dickson we are sailing in the same boat. I do not think that the 'People always invariably act to foster their own self-interest.' There are many who do not always think of self interest.

Love, affection, respect, regards, religious feelings are all apt to disprove the psychological egoism.

Hello,

Rraditionally accepted that psychological egoism is characterized by altruistic acts which are inherently motivated by personal, subjective goals and benefits. Conceptually, the term explicitly depicts that our acts are motivated by self-interest, and in the final analysis , our motivations are based on egoistic , self centered drives. While the first interpretation is universal, the second is reductive ,and as a consequence, should be supported and accredited by some type of evidence grounded in observation. Notably, from a moral viewpoint, ethical egoists claim that our being self-interested individuals does not count against moral values. Consequently, most philosophers (e.g.,Joseph Butler ) tend to reject the view all together. Nonetheless, psychological egoism has now turned into one of the vital tributaries of such fields as psychology, biology, economics, and sociobiology. Drawing on general assumptions of evolutionary theory, sociobiologists pointing to the substantial bulk of experimental data produced by concerned practitioners from biology, neuroscience, and psychology contend that psychological egoism can empirically be validated since it is certainly an empirical claim.

Best regards,

R. Biria

I personally would not know how to answer this question, but I liked knowing the answer.

Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so.

In fact, people who think psychological egoism is true (such as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand) often use it as a premise in an argument to deny the validity of traditional ethics altogether:

1. (Psychological egoism): People always and invariably act to foster their own self-interest.

2. Traditional ethical systems demand at least occasional altruism (non-self-interested behavior).

3. In demanding altruism, traditional ethical systems are demanding the impossible. (They might as well demand that people fly.)

4. Any ethical systems that demands the impossible is silly and stupid.

5. Traditional ethical systems are silly and stupid.

6. We should adopt a more realistic system, ethical egoism, which demands that we pursue self-interest.

http://lafavephilosophy.x10host.com/Egoism.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

Following to learn more. I think deep exhibition of love and affection can disprove it.

Dear Dickson we are sailing in the same boat. I do not think that the 'People always invariably act to foster their own self-interest.' There are many who do not always think of self interest.

Love, affection, respect, regards, religious feelings are all apt to disprove the psychological egoism.

Following

Logically: Is Love a fallacy?

MANY- People who follow spiritualism , strict and austere way of living !!!

There is story : A snake came to Buddha and said that all the kids would throw stones and cause bodily harm. So Buddha asked to why ???. The snake replied that Buddha told him not to bite others . Buddha then said I did not ask you not to hiss !!!!

So ego is like the hiss !!! if you are without it then you have no self-worth !!

Again , know when to draw lines , yep yep comes with people who will disprove fundamentals ...

Spritual intelligence can overcome the psychological egoism.

Dear Kirk,

I have no idea, what psychological egoism is?

Psychological selfishness is the theory that the fundamental motive behind human actions is personal interest, even in acts that seem altruistic and tender; in other words, even when a person chooses to help others, the ultimate goal behind this option is the personal benefit he is expected to receive - directly or indirectly - from doing this act. This theory seems more of a qualitative rather than a normative character, since it orbits in the orbit of characterization of what is, not what should be. But this theory may be linked to standard patterns, such as moral selfishness, rational selfishness.

One of the most famous examples of this theory is the doctrine of pleasure, which holds that the main motivation for all human actions is the desire to obtain pleasure and avoid pain. And most of the discussions about psychological selfishness revolves around this vision .. There are theorists of the contrary to this doctrine and interpreted the acts of personal interest without the use of pleasure and pain as the final reason for the human act .. The doctrine of pleasure is that the reason behind the acts is the achievement of happiness at the present moment , Or in the future, and therefore present pleasure may be sacrificed in order to obtain greater pleasure in the future. Also, according to this theory, a person does not move rigidly to avoid pain, pain may be tolerated and experienced in order to achieve a desired pleasure. All actions, according to this doctrine, seem to be tools to increase the amount of pleasure and decrease the amount of pain, even those seemingly innocuous, such as giving and altruism, or those that do not change the moment at saturation levels.

Lawrence Hinman's excellent analysis (ppt) of psychological egoism, which concludes with a reconceptualization of psychological egoism, may be downloaded here:

http://pactiss.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Psychological-Egoism.ppt

Dickson and Dr Sheth have said what I gad to say. Such instincts are above psychological egoism

Good question

In response to another question

https://www.researchgate.net/post/When_people_act_voluntarily_are_their_actions_caused_by_their_desires

I gave this answer:

I am walking swiftly along the sidewalk, going over in my mind how to write up the report that I have due tomorrow, and a kid throws a ball at chest-level across the path in front of me. Without breaking stride or interrupting my thoughts, I catch it with one hand and toss it to the side in his general direction. It is a voluntary act, not a reflex like blinking or sneezing, but I just did it; there was no deliberation. To say I acted out of desire seems too strong; sometimes just letting an impulse proceed unimpeded is enough.

I think it also works against psychological egoism. Some of our actions are just too trivial and undeliberated to have a goal that is self-regarding.

Good question and informative answers Thank you all!

interesting