ethical egoism and objectivism

[Demiurge]

An ethics of rational egoism is untenable. Randian Objectivists are very irritating proponents of it, or so my recent experience leads me to believe. One problem is that they actually make the argument that no agent can benefit from an action that harms another. This is empirically false. Next, they need to decide in what sense self-interest is valuable - absolute or relative. If the former, they fall prey to GE Moore's criticism in Principia Ethica. That is, my own self-interest is the sole good. "What egoism holds, therefore, is that each man's happiness is the sole good - that a number of different things are each of them the only good thing there is - an absolute contradiction!" If the latter, the contradiction dissipates. What is in my self interest is good for me, what is in yours is good for you. However, this also eliminates the supposed requirement of rational egoism to not harm other people.

I was discussing this elsewhere: www.talkphilosophy.org

I can't link directly to it, but it's in the chitchat forum and called "the bigot and the bar."

 

[RookParliament]

Are you posting as jcs?

NickOtani is based the whole thread around a moral argument which is a mistake.

Interesting read

 

[no country for old wainds]

Pretty sure he's Liche.

 

[RookParliament]

Ah.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I personally question the idea that it's actually possible to intentionally act against one's own interest. Surely every conscious action we take is essentially a product of our own values, and we value what pleases us. So called "selfless" acts are originally inspired by satisfaction of the self in one sense or another. Of course, if what satisfies you most is other people's happiness, that still doesn't necessary give you some form of moral superiority like the liberal world would have us believe.

 

[no country for old wainds]

As for Randian objectivism; fuck that ludicrous shite.

 

[Lord SteveO]

So in other words you say there can be no such thing as a trully selfless act (one in which you in no way at all help yourself or gain anything from your actions), as any action we take is a result of our own values. Basically some people are happy helping others and some are happy hindering others, but essentially they both feel the same way about their actions?

 

[no country for old wainds]

Essentially, yes. To do something truly "selfless" would literally involve stepping outside oneself; ceasing to be.

 

[Dushan S]

So in other words you say there can be no such thing as a trully selfless act (one in which you in no way at all help yourself or gain anything from your actions), as any action we take is a result of our own values. Basically some people are happy helping others and some are happy hindering others, but essentially they both feel the same way about their actions?

Acting based on morality or values is not selfless. But it is possible to act based on experience, understanding, and empathy. You know how pain feels, you can understand danger of someone being hurt, so you are sacrificing seats of your car that will be dirty because of blood and instead of going home to dinner you may end up driving person you don't know to hospital to save her life. It is a selfless act in a sense, that you don't doing it because you have something from it. It is not selfless because there is you, a subject acting based on his own experience, so in some way, both things are true.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Ultimately, what you're saying goes back to values. You value the health of other people, thus, helping other people satisfies you, and you act upon a desire for that satisfaction.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Ultimately, what you're saying goes back to values. You value the health of other people, thus, helping other people satisfies you, and you act upon a desire for that satisfaction.

But since that person is not you(the self) then wouldn't that still make it selfless. I would think that anything that benefits others more then your own self could be considered selfless.

 

[no country for old wainds]

From an external perspective, an act could certainly be seen as more beneficial to others than to the person who performed the act. It depends on how you're using the term. All I'm saying is that the fundamental motivation for every action is 100% satisfaction of the self, which has relevance in certain arguments of morality and such.

 

[Lord SteveO]

Makes sense. It may look like you only intended to help the injured person etc. But because it makes you feel better to see others live safely and be happy then i suppose you are at the end of it all still doing it for yourself.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

From an external perspective, an act could certainly be seen as more beneficial to others than to the person who performed the act.

That's where the modern concept of "selflessness" comes from. The act of performing actions which benefit others to a greater degree than to the self. Every action has the purpose of self-satisfaction at its core. It's how we're programmed. Anyone who believes otherwise misunderstands. However, the morality issue only comes in when people decide to perform actions which provide more for the self than for others, actions seen as "selfish" or "greedy." The 'moral' taboo agaisnt selfishness is a defense against greed. A world of Hungry Hungry Hippos doesn't strike me as a world anyone wants.

Randian Objectivism skews and simplifies that basic concept into a "philosophy of life." A dangerous, and as you said, ludicrous bag of shite.

 

[no country for old wainds]

A world of Hungry Hungry Hippos doesn't strike me as a world anyone wants.

The ultimate irony being that a society which presents so-called "selflessness" as an inherent good is selfish beyond belief.

Most people clearly only have a basic understanding of what they themselves want, let alone others, and even those who are more intelligent tend not to understand how to go about getting it. In turn their concept of selflessness put into practice tends to be faulty. My main conflict with those who constantly preach "selflessness" isn't so much that selflessness isn't inherently right or non-existent (though in some discussions such things are useful to point out) but that conventional "selflessness" is defined via a short-term, individualist worldview, and in turn its supporters tend to make the same mistakes such taboos should be in place to prevent.