Egoism and Moral Skepticism James Rachels's paper "Egoism and Moral Skepticism" begins by noting that he can trace his subject back to Plato's philosophical discussion of the myth of the Ring of Gyges -- Gyges gained the power of invisibility with a magic ring, and thus seduced queen, killed king, and seized the throne. In Plato's dialogue, the character of Glaucon argues that both virtuous man and rogue would be unable to resist the temptation in such a situation: Glaucon believes that, freed from fear of reprisal, man's behavior would quickly turn criminal, and Rachels traces back to Glaucon's argument two persistent philosophical positions (both of which he considers to be in error. The first he terms Psychological Egoism: this is the belief that men only act from self-interest; even supposed altruism is purely to the advantage of the person performing the act. Alongside this...

Before arguing why both of these positions are in error, Rachels notes wryly that if either of these views were actually correct, then "the majority of mankind is grossly deceived about what is, or ought to be, the case, where morals are concerned."
Rachels considers it the case that what he terms Psychological Egoism is refuted on a daily basis -- altruism happens all the time, and examples abound. Rachels offers two possible objections that could be made on behalf of Psychological Egoism in the fact of these facts: either both the selfish man and the altruist are merely expressing their own volition, and as such are doing…