Psychological Egoism in Plato's Republic and Other Literature

With Plato and Rachel's self-interest and moral skepticism, the author attempts to fight moral theory which claims psychological egoism, the motive of all people finally is self-interest. Each author denies that this is the possibility of an effective conclusion of philosophical ethics and each author provides an alternative solution to the origin of human motivation. Whether we can act in a way that is not selfish will directly affect the implementation of ethics throughout the world.

In Plato 's Republic and Rachel' s egoism and moral skepticism, both authors tackle two important aspects of human morality: objectivity of epistemology. Moral egoism is a normative argument that states that moral beings should do what is in their best interests. On the other hand, psychological egoism is a descriptive assertion that all moral creatures can only act for their own benefit, even if they act for the benefit of others. The difference between the two claims is that one is a normative claim and the other is a descriptive claim. Normological assertions include determining what people should do and creating ethical standards. Therefore, descriptive claims basically explain behaviors of moral beings and create ethical standards based on their behavior. Because of the relevance of these two arguments, I must first clearly distinguish the main features of each discussion. In "Challenge of Cloncon", Plato has established a long dialogue between Socrates and Plato's Brothers Grocone

First, I will first study the "Glaucon challenge" of moral and psychological self-interest. In the Republic of Plato, Socrates raised the question of whether good and virtue is truly worth to the individual. In the ring of Gyges, Socrates tells the story of a man named Glaucon who discovered the ring. Among them, he brought up the question of whether we take fair action despite the fact that we can escape immoral behavior. Essentially, he asked if we should send a beautiful life. Next he asked me to imagine that a kind person and a rogue would receive one of them if we had two such rings. Glaucon insists that corruption uses the ring naturally for personal joy without any ethical constraints. Regarding moral persons, Glaucon suggested that his behavior would not be better than fraud. He defended this position and insisted that no one had sufficient will to resist the temptation to do things for his own interests.