Philosopher: Psychological egoists claim that every human action is ultimately motivated by self-interest. They argue that even seemingly selfless acts, like donating anonymously to charity, are done to alleviate the donor's own feelings of guilt. But this explanation fails when applied to split-second acts of heroism. A bystander who instinctively dives in front of a moving train to save a child has no time to calculate emotional payoffs, proving that non-selfish motivations must exist.
Is the following statement regarding the argument true or false?
The philosopher's primary method of reasoning is to demonstrate that the psychological egoists' definition of self-interest is too broad to be logically meaningful.
Cevap: Cevap
Cevap
False
The statement is false. The philosopher does not argue that the egoists' definition of self-interest is too broad. Instead, the philosopher accepts the egoists' premise that self-interest operates via a calculation of emotional payoffs, but introduces a counterexample (a split-second action) where such a calculation is temporally impossible.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Identifying General Method of Reasoning - Using a counterexample to attack a causal mechanism