There is nothing ethical about egoism

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Egoism or selfishness is inconsiderate of the being of others. It is not an applicable belief, because:

1) In claiming oneself as the only thing worthy of consideration,
one ignores the reality of other beings.

2) It is irrational to claim that one ought to be selfish as there
would be a conflict (people believing themselves to be more
worthy of consideration than another; who is right?)

3) Even if others agree that they ought to serve one's interest,
there is a problem with universals.

The basic assumptions of egoistic philosophical beliefs, are either/that:

i) Happiness will always = to justice or virtue

or/and

ii) People's pursuit of self-interest will not create conflicts/physical
force

Point (i) is not true, because virtuous or just actions will not always equal to happiness.

Point (ii) is not true, because selfish or self-interested actions do result in unjust or physical conflicts (e.g. a feudal landlord attacking another landlord for land), and the only way that a self-interested action would always result in sans-conflict, would be if one makes sympathy as one's interest, which would be contradictory to the assumption that one ought to be self serving.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,895 • Replies: 39

No top replies

Hey Ray--you seem to be immersed in Ayn Rand quite a bit these days!

Rand offers a tentative but ultimately empty response to your objections. In many of Rand's fictional writings, there are characters who clearly do things for the benefit of other characters. The way Rand reconciles this with (her version of) egoism is to say that these characters, though outwardly acting toward the well-being of others, are really acting out of their own selfishness because the well-being of others is something that brings them pleasure.

It's a delightfully transparent, tautological argument because it can turn ANY action, even an unselfish one, into a selfish act. Talk about eating your cake and having it too...

0 Replies

There is no such thing as a completely selfless act, everyone acts in their own self interest.
Even if that means serving their country, their church, or 'the poor', because in doing so they satisfy desires created by their own ethical systems.
Also, Egoism isn't mutually exclusive with believing you are the only important thing. Some of us just think we are the most important thing to ourselves

0 Replies

Quote:

Hey Ray--you seem to be immersed in Ayn Rand quite a bit these days!

lol, well what can I say... Laughing

I especially despise her attack on Kant's categorical imperative when her ethics contain one of Kant's major belief: Treat people as an end, never as a means to an end. She just drives me mad.

Quote:

There is no such thing as a completely selfless act, everyone acts in their own self interest.
Even if that means serving their country, their church, or 'the poor', because in doing so they satisfy desires created by their own ethical systems.

Psychological egoism is a false theory of human motivation. You are the subject who are being motivated, but you are not necessarily the object of your motivation. Thus, a person may be motivated toward something that may not even be to the person's self-interest or selfish desires.

There also needs to be a distinction between "selfishness" and "self-interest." A person who is selfish, may not act to his or her self-interest, such as in the case when a person is trying to quit smoking, but yet acts according to selfish desires that lead to him or her undermining his or her self-interest. So there is a distinction between "selfish" and "self-interest."

0 Replies

Quote:

Psychological egoism is a false theory of human motivation

Good that you put that old thing to rest. When do you collect your nobel prize?

Quote:

You are the subject who are being motivated, but you are not necessarily the object of your motivation.

Plenty of great minds far more versed in human psychology and philosophy than yourself would heartily disagree. Some might agree, but this is certainly not as cut and dried as you paint it.

Quote:

Thus, a person may be motivated toward something that may not even be to the person's self-interest or selfish desires.

I do hope you have some evidence to support this assertion?

Quote:

There also needs to be a distinction between "selfishness" and "self-interest." A person who is selfish, may not act to his or her self-interest, such as in the case when a person is trying to quit smoking, but yet acts according to selfish desires that lead to him or her undermining his or her self-interest. So there is a distinction between "selfish" and "self-interest."

I see no such distinction. You are making a judgement call about what defines 'self interest' for everyone.
What if the person in question enjoys smoking?
I think you are mistaking 'self interest' from the cliche 'best interests', which is basically shorthand for 'whatever the author thinks is best'

0 Replies

Philosophers have looked at societies as a system and came up with ideas of altruism, harmony and equality for a smooth harmonious society that ran on rules. We give up some to gain more as when we live in groups with limited resources there is a lot of give and take. They also saw people who cut corners, short cuts and flouted rules and were labelled 'selfish'.

I read Ayn Rand, Jewess from the Soviet Union who I can sympathize with but now disagree with as her Objectivism is really an over-reaction to Soviets.

She is just giving an individualistic spin to all that we see as good.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:
Thus, a person may be motivated toward something that may not even be to the person's self-interest or selfish desires.

I do hope you have some evidence to support this assertion?

There is exactly as much evidence to support that assertion as

Quote:

There is no such thing as a completely selfless act, everyone acts in their own self interest.

0 Replies

Quote:

Good that you put that old thing to rest. When do you collect your nobel prize?

If you are serious about debating, then please make a point.

Quote:

Plenty of great minds far more versed in human psychology and philosophy than yourself would heartily disagree. Some might agree, but this is certainly not as cut and dried as you paint it.

Who? Tell me.

There is a subject and an object of your motivation. A person is the subject of a desire, the object is what he or she desires.

When a person looks at a person in pain, he or she usually does not think "hey I'll rescue that person to make me feel good." Rolling Eyes

Quote:

I do hope you have some evidence to support this assertion?

Yes of course, I just did. Try to give a negation if you like.

Furthermore, read this:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Egoism.html

Quote:

I see no such distinction. You are making a judgement call about what defines 'self interest' for everyone.
What if the person in question enjoys smoking?
I think you are mistaking 'self interest' from the cliche 'best interests', which is basically shorthand for 'whatever the author thinks is best'

What I gave was the general definition of the word "self-interest."

I don't know where you get "best interest" from.

0 Replies

I agree with Doktor that we always act in terms of our perceived self-interest. But I think we can at least make one distinction, thus avoiding the tautology pointed to by Shapeless.
Sometimes we feel that we benefit ourselves by benefitting others; sometimes we feel that we benefit ourselves by injuring others. In both cases there is a kind of egoism, but the meaning of the other is different. That is the only difference that makes a difference as far as I'm concerned.

0 Replies

Has no one had the experience of doing something he or she didn't want to do? I suspect it happens all the time, and attempts to rationalize them so that they look like egoism seem clumsy and unconvincing to me.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Quote:
Good that you put that old thing to rest. When do you collect your nobel prize?

If you are serious about debating, then please make a point.

My point is that your bald assertion here is laughable.

Quote:

Quote:
Plenty of great minds far more versed in human psychology and philosophy than yourself would heartily disagree. Some might agree, but this is certainly not as cut and dried as you paint it.

Who? Tell me.

There is a subject and an object of your motivation. A person is the subject of a desire, the object is what he or she desires.

Ok granted, I misunderstood your context.However, being that I made no contention about this I am left puzzled how you think it relates to your argument.
I didn't make any such claim to the contrary.

Quote:

When a person looks at a person in pain, he or she usually does not think "hey I'll rescue that person to make me feel good."

Who exactly are you speaking for? Do you contend that an action must be thought out in order to be selfish/unselfish? Most of human behavior is merely habitual.

Quote:

I do hope you have some evidence to support this assertion?

Quote:

Yes of course, I just did. Try to give a negation if you like.

Furthermore, read this:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Egoism.html

I'll not be chasing your links. Make your case here or not at all. You assertion that people act motivated towards naked altruism still stands unsupported.

Quote:

Quote:
I see no such distinction. You are making a judgement call about what defines 'self interest' for everyone.
What if the person in question enjoys smoking?
I think you are mistaking 'self interest' from the cliche 'best interests', which is basically shorthand for 'whatever the author thinks is best'

What I gave was the general definition of the word "self-interest."

I don't know where you get "best interest" from.

LOL. That was supposed to be a 'definition'?
Let's revisit it shall we?

Quote:

There also needs to be a distinction between "selfishness" and "self-interest." A person who is selfish, may not act to his or her self-interest, such as in the case when a person is trying to quit smoking, but yet acts according to selfish desires that lead to him or her undermining his or her self-interest. So there is a distinction between "selfish" and "self-interest."

Here you are contending that the self undermines the self, by assigning your own value judgements of what constitutes 'negative' and 'positive' self interest, labeling the former as 'selfish'
This line of thinking calls for a marked in stone standard for what constitutes 'right' and 'wrong' that simply doesn't exist.

Let's look at the actual definition of self interest.

Quote:

self-in·ter·est (slfntrst, -ntr-st)
n.

1. Selfish or excessive regard for one's personal advantage or interest.
2. Personal advantage or interest.

Quote:

self-interest

n 1: taking advantage of opportunities without regard for the consequences for others [syn: opportunism, self-seeking, expedience] 2: attempting to get personal recognition for yourself (especially by unacceptable means) [syn: egoism, egocentrism, self-concern, self-centeredness] [ant: altruism]

Quote:

self·ish ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slfsh)
adj.

1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: "Selfish men were... trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights" (Maria Weston Chapman).
2. Arising from, characterized by, or showing selfishness: a selfish whim.

Clearly these terms are synonymous. Your distinction is your own invention.

0 Replies

Quote:

My point is that your bald assertion here is laughable.

Well then tell me why it's laughable.

Quote:

Ok granted, I misunderstood your context.However, being that I made no contention about this I am left puzzled how you think it relates to your argument.
I didn't make any such claim to the contrary.

Selfishness requires that you are the object of your desire. That is not necessarily true.

Quote:

Who exactly are you speaking for? Do you contend that an action must be thought out in order to be selfish/unselfish? Most of human behavior is merely habitual.

If most human actions are habitual, then that statement itself can prove psychological egoism wrong. Most actions that are done out of habits are then not done out of a selfish desire, but merely as a habit.

Quote:

LOL. That was supposed to be a 'definition'?
Let's revisit it shall we?

Yes let's.

Quote:

Here you are contending that the self undermines the self, by assigning your own value judgements of what constitutes 'negative' and 'positive' self interest, labeling the former as 'selfish'
This line of thinking calls for a marked in stone standard for what constitutes 'right' and 'wrong' that simply doesn't exist.

There I was saying that a person's selfish behaviour may not be to the person's self-interest. Self-interest being something that is of an advantage to the person. Not quitting is not an advantage at all.

Quote:

Has no one had the experience of doing something he or she didn't want to do? I suspect it happens all the time, and attempts to rationalize them so that they look like egoism seem clumsy and unconvincing to me.

I agree with you shapeless. :wink:

Quote:

I agree with Doktor that we always act in terms of our perceived self-interest. But I think we can at least make one distinction, thus avoiding the tautology pointed to by Shapeless.
Sometimes we feel that we benefit ourselves by benefitting others; sometimes we feel that we benefit ourselves by injuring others. In both cases there is a kind of egoism, but the meaning of the other is different. That is the only difference that makes a difference as far as I'm concerned.

Sometimes does not equal always, which is what egoism asserted. A soldier who risked his life trying to save his friend (an example from the link I gave), is not doing so for selfish reason.

There is always a tautology related to psychological egoism. A person who does something desires that thing to be done. Yeah, so? Does that mean that his desire is for him or herself? No.

Jl, I thought you're a Buddhist. :wink: Didn't Buddha reach enlightenment out of the realization that others are suffering? The three visions? And why did he continue to tell others of his finding of enlightenment? Certainly it is not for himself, because he sees that there is no such thing as "himself"?

0 Replies

Ray
Ayn Rand was a world class fool with a world class ego.

BBB

0 Replies

BBB, You go girl.

Ray, I don't know (ask Asherman; he has that kind of knowledge). But I do think that the perspective of your questions to me are outside the framework of Buddhism as I understand it.

But in general terms, I think we generally do thing because (unless they are mere conditioned reflexes) we want to, i.e., our acts are motivated. This does not exclude "altruism." As I noted earlier, I may be motivated (i.e., I may desire consciously or unconsciously) to do harm or to bring benefit to others (and in the Buddhist perspective those "others" are ultimately my true Self, but that's beside the point in this discussion). Whether I do harm or benefit, I am, almost by definition, MOTIVATED to do so, and the concept, "psychological egoism," may apply to both. Therefore "egoism" need not be un-altruistic. We might distinguish between altruistic egoism and selfish egoism.

0 Replies

Ray,

Quote:

Selfishness requires that you are the object of your desire.

Huh? How did you reach that conclusion?
I don't want myself, I want things for myself.

Quote:

If most human actions are habitual, then that statement itself can prove psychological egoism wrong. Most actions that are done out of habits are then not done out of a selfish desire, but merely as a habit.

Could be we are arguing apples and oranges. I think everything we do is out of self interest, including the vast array of subconscious motivators. Sometimes these motivators are far enough below the surface to be disguised on the surface as selflessness, but there is always self interest at the root.

Quote:

There I was saying that a person's selfish behaviour may not be to the person's self-interest. Self-interest being something that is of an advantage to the person. Not quitting is not an advantage at all.

And again you are projecting your own values of what constitutes 'advantageous'
How do you know a short life of indulgence is inferior to a long life of abstinence?

Quote:

A soldier who risked his life trying to save his friend (an example from the link I gave), is not doing so for selfish reason.

I could just as easily argue that he was. Embedded values can make you feel good when you follow them. Doing what you have been programmed to think is the 'right' thing is a sort of indulgence. Not doing what you have been programmed to think is 'right' can lead to guilt. Simple reward/punishment scenario.

Quote:

A person who does something desires that thing to be done. Yeah, so? Does that mean that his desire is for him or herself? No.

Do you have an argument for that bald assertion? I would say the REASON that person is doing that thing is because he desires it to be done. No tortured exegesis required.

0 Replies

Quote:

Huh? How did you reach that conclusion?
I don't want myself, I want things for myself.

Wanting things "for" yourself, is the same as having yourself as the object of your desire, because then the object of your desire would be to have something for yourself.

Quote:

Could be we are arguing apples and oranges. I think everything we do is out of self interest, including the vast array of subconscious motivators. Sometimes these motivators are far enough below the surface to be disguised on the surface as selflessness, but there is always self interest at the root.

No. In this case you are equating the motive to the subject. You are saying that just because the subject is motivated to do something, then he is doing something for the sake of him or her self and him or her self only.

If you look at the link I gave you earlier, the author has her own set of arguments against your point:

"It certainly appears that people sometimes act in ways that are not in accord with their own interests: the soldier who falls on the grenade to save his buddies, the person who runs into the busy street to save a child about to be run over, etc. Psychological egoism is only true if you adopt what Rachels calls the strategy of redefining motives. That is, you insist on claiming that people are "really" acting selfishly even when they appear to be acting unselfishly.

But this strategy has two problems. First, if all human actions are self-interested, then "self-interested actions" become, by definition, identical with "actions". That is, these two expressions denote exactly the same set of actions, and thus are substitutable for each other. It then becomes impossible to disprove the claim that all human actions are self-interested, because the claim, after substitution, becomes a vacuous tautology: "All human actions are human actions." "

Quote:

And again you are projecting your own values of what constitutes 'advantageous'
How do you know a short life of indulgence is inferior to a long life of abstinence?

Do you even know what it means to be addicted to something? It means that even if you "want" to stop, something pulls you back. I'm not "projecting" my values. If any, it seems that you are projecting your values toward all human actions.

Quote:

I could just as easily argue that he was. Embedded values can make you feel good when you follow them. Doing what you have been programmed to think is the 'right' thing is a sort of indulgence. Not doing what you have been programmed to think is 'right' can lead to guilt. Simple reward/punishment scenario.

Quote:

Do you have an argument for that bald assertion? I would say the REASON that person is doing that thing is because he desires it to be done. No tortured exegesis required.

A person doing something because he desires it to be done is simply doing something of his will. It does not mean that his action is selfish. You just gave me a tautological statement.

Quote:

But in general terms, I think we generally do thing because (unless they are mere conditioned reflexes) we want to, i.e., our acts are motivated. This does not exclude "altruism." As I noted earlier, I may be motivated (i.e., I may desire consciously or unconsciously) to do harm or to bring benefit to others (and in the Buddhist perspective those "others" are ultimately my true Self, but that's beside the point in this discussion). Whether I do harm or benefit, I am, almost by definition, MOTIVATED to do so, and the concept, "psychological egoism," may apply to both. Therefore "egoism" need not be un-altruistic. We might distinguish between altruistic egoism and selfish egoism.

But Jl, you haven't avoided the tautology of your argument. If being motivated to do something means doing something period, then you would be saying that your actions are actions.

Also, if we were to look at the reason behind the reason of a certain action, and look at a particular instant when a person is experiencing "the moral insight" as Josiah Royce would call it where you understand the other person's state, then you are motivated because you understand why the person should not be in a state of pain, etc.

I have a feeling that you are arguing in terms of "self" as what the mystic calls the true "self" (=everyone, and not just one person). If that is the case, we are not arguing about the same things. Peace.

Quote:

I don't know (ask Asherman; he has that kind of knowledge). But I do think that the perspective of your questions to me are outside the framework of Buddhism as I understand it.

Yeah, I don't think Buddhism deals with that.

I can picture Asherman giving me links to previous posts now. Laughing

0 Replies

And even worse than having a big ego is walking around pretending you have no ego.

You know, thats one of the things some buddhist monks supposedly trip over.

Monks walking around the monastery having a humility contest. "I've got less ego than you." Or something like that.

Someone once said: Behind a person claiming to have no ego, is often lurking the biggest ego of all.

0 Replies

EM, how about "My ego's bigger than your ego!" ?

I think that monks quickly get over that pretension. Monastery life does not encourage that kind of behavior.

Ray, I agree that it is tautologous to argue that one does what he does because he wants to. There's no new information in this statement, which is why it is a tautology. I would suggest that the motivation and the act ARE the same thing. Otherwise, I would be resting on the false assumption of an "agent" of the action who is also "the object" of the motivational force.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

EM, how about "My ego's bigger than your ego!" ?

Nice try. But really, you are much more humble than me.

I am a terrible terrible being. I am so bad. I am the worst!

Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Bullshit! I'm far more horrible than you can ever hope to be.

By the way, imagine two men, both with equally large egos, but one sees through it; he is actually amused by the ways his ego presses him to do various dishonorable things. But he knows his ego is unreal. The other man performs the same dishonorable acts but thinks that the acts are expressive of his true self. For this man his ego is real. Indeed it IS him. So ego size is not the point. What matters is whether or not it is transparent or opaque for its host.

0 Replies

There is nothing ethical about egoism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know