Thomas Hobbes MORALITY AND SELF-INTEREST

2012 ◽  
pp. 41-51
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Self Interest

Liberalism Under Attack

1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
J. Roland Pennock
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Practical Ethics ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Extreme View

The title of this article is much broader than its subject matter, which discussespoliticalliberalism only and only a selection of the attacks that have been made upon it and some of the responses they have elicited. More specifically, certain large and important topics are almost wholly excluded: to wit, the Marxist attacks, the concept of liberty, and rights and justice.It will appear as we proceed that the arguments develop on various levels: philosophical (especially epistemological) foundations, practical ethics, and theories of governmental operation. However, these will not be used as the basis of organization in what follows.Liberalism may be considered as a kind of individualism, a fact that is relied upon by both its proponents and its opponents. Individualism comes in many varieties (see Lukes 1973). Oversimplifying, I shall reduce them to three. The first of these (with which many critics of liberalism identify it) may be called “atomistic” individualism. It represents the extreme view of the priority (both chronologically and in terms of value) of the individual as opposed to society. The works of Thomas Hobbes, F. A. Hayek, and Robert Nozick are representative of this type of theory. They tend to think of the individual as having a fixed nature dominated by rational self-interest, emphasizing the satisfaction of preferences. In the words of Christopher J. Berry, individuals “are depicted variously as alienated, selfish, competitive, possessive, apathetic, and so on” (Berry 1989, 2).

The Soul of Modern Economic Man: Ideas of Self-Interest, Thomas Hobbes to Adam Smith

1984 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 290
Author(s):  
Robert F. Hebert ◽  
Milton L. Myers
Keyword(s):  
Adam Smith ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Economic Man ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Modern Economic

Hobbes

2019 ◽  
pp. 10-26
Author(s):  
Roger Crisp
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Human Action ◽  
Standard Interpretation ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Instrumental View

This chapter discusses the views on self-interest and morality of Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). The standard interpretation of Hobbes as a psychological egoist (that is, a philosopher who claims that the sole ultimate motivation for voluntary human action) is defended against modern criticism. Hobbes is also argued to be a rational egoist (that is, a philosopher who claims that the sole ultimate reason for all voluntary human action is the promotion of the agent’s self-interest). Hobbes’s ‘instrumental’ view of morality is explained. The power of his challenge to morality is brought out, despite the problems in his famous response to ‘the Foole’.

Sacrifice Regained

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Crisp
Keyword(s):  
Common Sense ◽  
David Hume ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The Other ◽  
Moral Reasons ◽  
Psychological Egoism ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Common ◽  
Good For

Does being virtuous make you happy? This book examines the answers to this ancient question provided by the so-called ‘British Moralists’, from about 1650 for the next two hundred years. This involves elucidating their views on happiness (self-interest, or well-being) and on virtue (or morality), in order to bring out the relation of each to the other. Themes ran through many of these writers: psychological egoism, evaluative hedonism, and—after Thomas Hobbes—the acceptance of self-standing moral reasons. But there are exceptions, and even those taking the standard views adopt them for very different reasons and express them in various ways. As the ancients tended to believe that virtue and happiness largely, perhaps entirely, coincide, so these modern authors are inclined to accept posthumous reward and punishment. Both positions sit uneasily with the common-sense idea that a person can truly sacrifice their own good for the sake of morality or for others, and the book shows that David Hume—a hedonist whose ethics made no appeal to the afterlife—was the first major British moralist to allow for, indeed to recommend, such self-sacrifice. Morality and well-being of course remain central to modern ethics, and this book demonstrates how much there is to learn from this remarkable group of philosophers.

Responsible gambling:The need for collaborative government, industry, community and consumer involvement

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 307-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Blaszczynski
Keyword(s):  
Responsible Gambling ◽  
Consumer Involvement ◽  
Harm Minimization ◽  
Harm Minimisation ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
The Social ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Gambling Expenditure ◽  
Innovative Products ◽  
Industry Community

Abstract. Background: Tensions exist with various stakeholders facing competing interests in providing legal land-based and online regulated gambling products. Threats to revenue/taxation occur in response to harm minimisation and responsible gambling policies. Setting aside the concept of total prohibition, the objectives of responsible gambling are to encourage and/or restrict an individual’s gambling expenditure in terms of money and time to personally affordable limits. Stakeholder responsibilities: Governments craft the gambling environment through legislation, monitor compliance with regulatory requirements, and receive taxation revenue as a proportion of expenditure. Industry operators on the other hand, compete across market sectors through marketing and advertising, and through the development of commercially innovative products, reaping substantial financial rewards. Concurrently, governments are driven to respond to community pressures to minimize the range of negative gambling-related social, personal and economic harms and costs. Industry operators are exposed to the same pressures but additionally overlaid with the self-interest of avoiding the imposition of more stringent restrictive policies. Cooperation of stakeholders: The resulting tension between taxation revenue and profit making, harm minimization, and social impacts creates a climate of conflict between all involved parties. Data-driven policies become compromised by unsubstantiated claims of, and counter claims against, the nature and extent of gambling-related harms, effectiveness of policy strategies, with allegations of bias and influence associated with researchers supported by industry and government research funding sources. Conclusion: To effectively advance policies, it is argued that it is imperative that all parties collaborate in a cooperative manner to achieve the objectives of responsible gambling and harm minimization. This extends to and includes more transparent funding for researchers from both government and industry. Continued reliance on data collected from analogue populations or volunteers participating in simulated gambling tasks will not provide data capable of valid and reliable extrapolation to real gamblers in real venues risking their own funds. Failure to adhere to principles of corporate responsibility and consumer protection by both governments and industry will challenge the social licence to offer gambling products. Appropriate and transparent safeguards learnt from the tobacco and alcohol field, it is argued, can guide the conduct of gambling research.

Love and Self-Interest

1998 ◽  
Vol 43 (7) ◽  
pp. 481-482
Author(s):  
Graham L. Staines
Keyword(s):  
Self Interest

When Self-Interest and Altruism Conflict: Diffusion of Responsibility and Victim Retribution

1971 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Wolosin ◽  
Steven J. Sherman ◽  
Clifford R. Mynatt
Keyword(s):  
Self Interest ◽  
Diffusion Of Responsibility
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document