A Refutation of Egoism

Post Reply New Topic

After having taken an ethics class, I am now better armed to refute egoism than before. First of all, egoism must be defined. James Rachels (I don't have a citation from my textbook on hand and am just recalling this from memory) divided egoism into two categories: Psychological egoism is the belief that all behavior is fundamentally motivated by self-interest; ethical egoism is the moral attitude that people should act on their self-interest rather than hold themselves to a standard of altruistic concern for all.

Rachels argues that it is precisely the altruistic, nonselfish people who would be motivated to do acts of kindness when they don't stand to gain anything. Also, people sometimes give up doing things they'd rather do to do something for someone they care about. They may highly dislike what they're doing, too. This is quite distinct from an act taken out self-interest (which should not be considered the same as selfishness), which is intended to benefit the self, by definition. He argues that, because of sympathy, love, and other such emotions, nearly all human beings have an innate capacity to act altruistically.

Ayn Rand was a notable supporter of ethical egoism. In fact, she believes most people live bathed in guilt and cynicism because they realize they don't act altruistically and feel guilty because they believe they should. She called this the stunted moral development of humanity. She said it is wrong to consider the robber's pursuit of self-interest to be morally equivalent to the successful entrepreneur's (or some other business type's) pursuit of self-interest; rather, the moral question lies in what a person considers their self-interest to pursue in the first place.

James Rachels, though, makes some arguments against ethical egoism. He states that the ethical egoist would prefer other people be altruists so that he or she could profit from their kindness. Ethical egoism cannot be attacked from a logical standpoint. He says altruists and ethical egoists simply follow different moral axioms. If an egoist asks why a person should not burn down a house with people inside and the response is, "Because people could be hurt" and he or she asks for a better explanation, the argument ends because the egoist and the altruist simply don't share moral principles. Rachels then notes that people who truly follow ethical egoism are exceptionally rare because sympathy and love play such an important role in the functioning of human society.

Naent's eample;

They do it for two reasons;
1. they don't want to deal with the resulting guilt
2. the do it so they can feel good about themselves

Mother Theresa is a great example of this. One could argue that a person, such as she, who lived their whole life in service of others, is a great argument against egoism.
Because the study of philosophy is the search for universal truths. If she is so giving then it proves that not everybody is self interresested, therefore egoism is an incorrect staement of fact.


Many times Mother theresa has been asked why do you do these things. Her consistent answer was that she was doing god's work. She was convicted so much by her faith that she didn't have a choice but to do these things. which makes her case a perfect example of why egoism is an accurate statement of fact.

The reasons are basic. It all boils down to survival instinct. One will do what is necessary to survive. Mere survival is not enough for everybody and to varying degrees. Some people want morre from life. As a result they do what is necessary to achieve that, based upon their own selfish desires. Oft time the selfish desires are greed for worldly things,

You might reply then what of the martyr. Those that do not denounce certain things in an effort to have their lives spared. They don't because of egoism. The believe that life is more than what we see here on earth. Most times they are people convicted by faith in god and life after death. They believe that it would be in their best interrest to give up their earthly body for a greater existence in a place different than earth.
the 9/11 hijackers for example.

Slice it, dice it, do whatever you need, the bottom line is that people look out for themselves and their self interrests.

...And regardless of what those two authors with their head up their ass that you mentioned think, the world will always continue on with buisness as usual. You're no better at refuting anything now than you were before. You can spout off all the philisophical BS you want and it will never effect anything.

I see some major flaws in Ethical Egoism. Nationalism, Martyrdom.

Also, how can 20 people possibly be worth more then my life?

It has nothing to do with morals. Its a cost vs. benefit/consequence. What about in wartime, where your opponent practices guerrilla warfare, and your team had reason to believe that their was a sect of your enemy hiding inside the house. But it could be an innocent family. Do you walk away and risk having not and one of those that you didn't kill earlier (in the house) be the reason for your death later?
Do you check the house, even though it would be dangerouos, tactically speaking. Since they would have the advantage of a defensive posture and cover.
No you would burn the house and justify that alls fair....

In a not so extreme example; lets suppose that it is your nieghbors house. You wouldn't do it because there is no specific benefit to satisfy your self interrest. Matter of fact there may be consequences. You may be arrested for arson and go to jail.

That's why people as a general rule follow the law. Because it is not in their best interrest to go to jail. cost vs. benefit/consequence as it applies to satisfying your percieved end.



Yes, we do not want to see bad things happen to others, because we don't want bad things to happen. The natural selectivity of bad things happening follows that this bad thing may happen to me someday. So we have compassion for ourselves, and not wishing bad things to happen to us.

But the grace of god, there go i. Of course you can feel sympathy for others. It is easy to see that human beings are the same species, prone to the same habits and situations. The previous argument prevails.
Don't you think that love is equal to self worth. You may only sell something in the market for the price that someone is willing to pay for it. If no-one buys it then it is worthless, the only value it has is the possibility of a future sale at a reduced cost.
If nobody loves you then what would you consider to be your self worth. And can you be loved without also loving. Is love in its very nature reciprocal.
Also, your Rachels tosses around the word love like the definition is clear.
I defy you to define the word love. Put it on a post and see how many 'fuzzy' answers you get. Everybody wants someone to love is the quote, more aptly, everybody wants someone to love them.
Being married could be equated to love. But consider the convenience in the union. The trophy to display to society. The new circles that married people run with. Its an expected rite of passage therefor , duty.
Children are another example. Obviously evry person loves their children. But even deeper, people love the notion of living forever. Or living again, you could make sure that you don't let your kids screw it up how you did. Then they do, due to their own selfish interrests. Also children provide the notion that you will be loved forever. Another selfish act.

If your honest with yourself you could drive yourself insane asking your self constantly, "what was my alterior motive." Just accept the fact that you love yourself a little more than you love anybody else.

Mithrandir asserts,

20 people are not worth more, to you.

To Ayn Rand they are.

I will gladly sacrifice my life to save the human race.

Then ayn rand is not an egoist.
if she belives that the group is more important than the individual.

Imagine, like in the movie armaggeden when bruce willis gave his life to save the planet.

He was selfish.

His date of birth would likely become a global holiday. he would be mentioned in every history book on the planet. His name would probaly be synonomous with a religion. he'd be bigger than the beattles, who were bigger than jesus.

That would be better than living a life of ananymity. especially because if he hadn't done so, there would be no earth to go back to and he would have died anyways.

Try again

That would depend on the kind of person. In the case of sex offenders, terrorists, drug dealers, other criminals, and people who are good as dead for whatever reason can be secrificed in unlimited numbers without a crisis of conscience unless you have to save some to sacrifice for a second or third person. Then you have to save some to sacrifice to save hose two people as well.

Sean that brings up a good point and one i have been debating in my own mind for about a week.

TOUCHY TOPIC ALERT---YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Last week the state executed one of the founding members of the 'CRIPS' gang (THE BLUE ONES).

and i found something very ironic happening.

The right to lifer (anti-abortionists) were nowhere to be seen

but,

the Liberals (pro-abortionists) were holding a candlelight vigil

Now i understand the pro-abortionists being there since they tend to be Americal Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and as an American, regardless of all else, he should be afforded basic liberties. By his crimes he gave up his right to liberty, but not his pursuit of life and/or hapiness.

But

The prolifers believe that an embrio is a fetus, therefore a human being and that abortion is murder. Embrio=Human being like an acorn=an oak tree.
whats notable is that its the religious right which makes up a vast majority of the pro lifers. Why weren't they holding a protest about the execution.

after all

Doesn't god love evrybody? Shouldn't this man have a chance to repent before god and find jesus, who died for all man's sins. By taking his life prematurely they also took away his opportunity to find god. And if he did find god already, then they should have still been there, because he has repented, according to their beliefs.
And also, doesnt the scripture say, 'Vengence is mine sayeth the lord' and another time the bible makes mention of 'no man shall be judged but by me.

I mean c'mon. is there any other greater act of judgement than to take a life.

I wish that there could be more consistency, then i would have an easier time taking a position.

Beware the hippocrite

I think it's all psychological egoism; though that can be divided into two subcategories:

1. direct profit
2. indirect profit

The first is where we do something which is directly beneficial and obviously so. Like purchasing a DVD or a book for ouselves.

The second is indirect, where we do something nice for someone else. But I argue we ALWAYS gain something for doing something for another person. It's just that it often isn't material in nature. Sometimes, this is more along the lines of satisfaction.

But we always gain something, whether it's a material or neurochemical reward. This is how living creatures work. And creatures which work together tend to gain more individually as well.

Perhaps you should have more respect for people who are more intelligent than you. They use their head to solve problems, not guns.

I second your opinion there (and was going to post it if you didn't as my own!). I think that altruism doesn't exist unless you discount internal rewards we get from helping behavior/acts of so-called altruism. This is not to say that I do not believe that there are good, kind, charitable people- but they're not getting NOTHING out of their goodness and kindness, just nothing tangible. They, for example, may feel better (or less bad) about themselves for helping.

You can also make a good argument that altruism is simply wired into us at either a biological or social level. The fact is that social groups which exhibit altruistic behavior are often more robust and stable, so it's not hard to imagine that societies which promote altruism would, over time, overshadow and supplant those that don't.

This fits in well with Sophist's point that people do altruistic things largely because it gives them that "warm fuzzy" feeling. The reason we get that feeling from helping others is because we're wired that way.

Like NeantHumain said in the original post, egoism isn't inconsistent; it just relies on different axioms. In this case, I believe nature has settled on the ideal compromise: it has created, by means of the warm fuzzies, a system in which self-interest and altruism are one and the same. I don't believe it's necessary to draw a distinction between the two.

Jeremy

My oh my, we do have some miserable cynics here. Each to their own of course, but cynics miss out on so many things in life because of this attitude that "everything is bad and you can't do anything about it".

Neant, carry on the good work. Just remember, egoism displays itself globally as Capitalism, and altruism displays itself globally as Socialism. We must undermine the myth that egoism and selfishness is the only way to live, and then we might just beat capitalism itself.

RobertN pointed back at himself with this shallow argument,

Cynicism is the incorrect term. It would be called optimism.

Your narrow view would be calld fatalism; there is nothing to gain then, why bother.

An egoist acts, and actually does something thanks to their belief that there is something to be gained.

Thank you for playing, please try again.