A Refutation of Egoism

Post Reply New Topic

What - cleaning the toilets for the corporate elite?

Last edited by RobertN on 20 Dec 2005, 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

And who are you to decide how the game is played? Cut the crap Sean.

Umm.. Where did I say I was defining the word? Here's the dictionary definition in case you're still confused:

Thank you, rearden. Using that definition, I go on to say that there is plenty of altruism about, its just people like Sean try to suppress it.

There you go again with a blanket statement.

would you care to give an example in support of your claim?


And i suggest that you do not submit a knee jerk reaction example.

Think long and hard. i claim that no matter what you come up with, even if it takes your life time, that i will be able to spout a knee jerk refuttal of your claim. In an instant, i will cause you to rethink everything you have ever known as true.

Lets keep things civil in this thread shall we.

There had been a lot of mud slinging going on in this thread and some of the posts are approaching the bounds of innapropriate.

This behavior will stop now!

The mods will not hesitate to lock it and take further action should this continue.

I think every organism is ultimately egoistic to the core, but that that doesn't say much about how it acts at all, it just means it acts in what it believes to be best to do next, no matter for what purpose, but ultimately connected to its own benefit as it imagines it. Sacrifice its own life to save its child or steal money from someone e.g. The difference as I see it isn't in whether it's egoistic or not, but in how far ahead the person thinks. Sharing makes the environment potentially more charitable back and it also makes a better environment for all parties; if the environment is satisfied it is less likely to destroy for you. And also, the inspiration from the idea itself can spread further. It's mostly about what idea has a critical mass at the moment as for what inspires most people, since very few are analytical enough to find incentive in going against the herd.

Egoism is part of humanity. The trick is to have a society that rewards loyalty. When the interests of the individual and the interests of the society coincide then things work. Dependence on altruism may work in times of plenty but will not be successful under strained conditions and the good of man should not be trusted. Machiavelli is a good teacher on the nature of man, fear of punishment is a better motivator than love.

No, computers. With the right tecnical training and buisness negotiation skills, I could theoretically hold the coporate "elite" coordination of their operations for ransom. Anyway, it sure beats living off of welfare most of my life until my parents die so I can live off their inheritance. So much for you being a genuine altruist and doing something to benifit society.

I agree with you and welcome! i havent had the opportunity to read some of your thoughts before.

I have a core belief in egoism as it applies to people helping people and vice versa. The popular belief is that egoism is derived from SELFISH interrests rather than SELF interrest, meaning;

people will backstab and steal from your mother just as sure as they are going to get what they want from you.

This is a shallow view which is practiced by many, to be certain.

I believe that success or achieving what you really want comes from a cooperated effort in humanity. I cannot possibly hold all the keys to unlocking the door which houses my desires, and neither can you. But together, and with help from others, we may be able to achieve our end desire. We all benefit and we all gain substantially more if left to our own devices.

Once again, i appreciate the privelage of your insight.
SB²

Last edited by SB2 on 21 Dec 2005, 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Same thing.
I agree and welcome.
my agreement is in the post previous.

Looking forward to reading more from you as well.
Help me unlock some doors!

Wow, were both confusing each other.
Ayn Rand is the epitome of ethical Egoist.
She would never agree that anyone is more important then her.

Try again?
How about this, there are too many people on the plane and no parachutes, will you jump off?
Besides even after Bruce Willis did do this, will he care? He's dead.

For Ayn Rand's case, she never had any children, luckily for them.

Mithrandir,

one of my favorites, your logic doesn't make my head hurt. a compliment.

i know she is, its the way you stated your case, or the way i interpreted it.

I have to admit that the aspect of children (for those of you who do have them) make the case of egoism a little harder to argue. i am sure i'd do anything for my children. Then again, i do believe in the previous arguments i stated as to why people have children, under egoism. And still i cannot help but wonder if the fact that i wouldn't do anything for them isn't based in self interrest.

"what a guy" people would say, about what i did for them, if i was ever put in that position. Other than that it is the daily grind of responsibility, being a parent. Maybe i do my part to best prepare them for life so one day they will go out into the world, make something of themselves, and i can feel pride. and that i will gain my privacy back, being that they, hopefully will not be 30 and still living at home.


Incidently Mithrander,
i noticed your name. then i noticed your repeated quotes from rand. mithRANDer, does it mean anything in particular, or am i reaching on this one?

It was from Tolkien, Return of the King.
In Elvish it means "Gandalf" notice the picture.

My older brother, he was nuts about Tolkien.

Being a rebel, i never gave it a shot. At his insistence.

Although i have read just about every other thing under the sun.

I like potter, i though it was dumbeldore

I agree that when we act in ways we believe are altruistic it does benefit us and serve our interests directly or indirectly and I think this has served as quite a nice balance as it is ideally a win-win situation for everyone involved

Now I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent here (although some of it is related) and I should begin this by saying that for everything I say here-and anywhere for that matter-I have no way of knowing if it's right or even close-it's probably way off the mark, it's just my two cents worth. Ethical egoism, is, I believe, one of the components of the philosophy of objectivism developed by Rand, and based on what I know of this philosophy I can't wholeheartedly agree with ethical egoism nor the philosophy itself in it's entirety. First of all, it claims that all reality exists as an objective absolute, and that reason is the only means of perceiving this reality-that emotions are subjective. However, acting on one's self interest is implicitly acting on one's emotions, since those interests are motivated by fear and a desire for happiness and comfort, among others. So I am not sure why according to this philosophy acting on one's own self-interests is the highest moral purpose of one's life while acting on emotions such as sympathy, empathy, and love are wrong, since both involve acting upon one's emotions-and one can choose to act upon sympathy, empathy, and love through just as rational and reasonable a decision. In addition, the neurobiological processes that lead to reason and emotion are both important in the way our brains and our bodies function, they have both played a significant role in both our biological and social evolution, and they cannot be completely separated nor can we separate ourselves from either one as they probably work in very complex ways that we are not even aware of. Also, I'm sure it's entirely possible to come to the conclusion based on wholly reasonable, rational thinking not to act entirely upon one's own self interests (and I mean entirely, since I think we usually do so to some extent) It's a bit hard to describe what I'm trying to say here since I often see abstract concepts as pictures rather than describe them in words, but I'll try- certainly, all reality may be objective and based upon natural laws, but that means that these natural laws-physical laws manifesting themselves as the laws of chemistry, the laws of chemistry manifesting themselves as the laws of biology-led to the evolution of humans who possessed emotions which played and continue to play a significant role in how their brains and bodies function, and how they perceive the world, and it's probably very difficult if not impossible to separate oneself from them entirely, and they have a purpose. I really don't think humans are fully equipped right now to know everything-we're probably limited, just as a cat or dog is limited to what it can know of it's world. We're definately unique among animals in some of our abilities, but there are probably things we can't comprehend-we can't visualize more than three dimensions, for instance. Another thing I disagree with is it's rejection of the belief that we are subject to forces beyond are control such as genes, upbringing, and environment. Everything I know right now of biology, sociology, and history does not support the rejection of this belief. This could certainly change as science is an ever-changing process, but right now, I just don't see it. Take intelligence for example-research shows that genes play a role, as well as one's childhood environment, particularily in early childhood. The level of one's intelligence can limit one's decisions later on in life, such as what job he or she takes. An important concept in biology is that our genotype and environment shape our phenotype-our outward characteristics. I'm not sure how a belief in rational, reasonable thought could reject this. All that being said, I've been reading many of the essays on the Ayn Rand institute website, and it has been my general observation that many of them are quite strong, heated and subjective in their language, they tend to make generalizations about large groups of people, such as environmentalists, whose goals are described in one article as ..."not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather it is a subhuman world where "nature" is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion" Perhaps even the most seemingly objective and rational people out there are still very emotional ones too.
To be perfectly honest, while I'm all for rational thought, I believe emotions are important too especially as a complement to it, and that's what I don't like about ethical egoism and it's encompassing philosophy, objectivism. To me, it puts humans on a pedestal of sorts in assuming they are capable of knowing everything and doing so completely without emotion, which is probably impossible for us, and I'm not sure why we would even want to. To be even more honest, I think it's arrogant. There is a vast universe out there, something much bigger than us, some of which may very well be beyond our understanding, and we should attempt to find out as much about it and our place in it as we can, but beyond that, I'm content to just ponder it with awe, wonder, and humility.
Thanks for letting me get all that off my chest, it's been eating away at me and wracking my brains all day
Oh yeah, and I'm really sorry if I appear to be all high and mighty or anything. I guess I always feel compelled to explain my thoughts and feelings in as much detail as possible and that can lead to long, rambling posts like this one.