Stephen Leach gives you an unbiased reason why you shouldn’t be selfish.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/The_Best_Criticism_of_Ethical_Egoism
The Best Criticism of Ethical Egoism
-
Philosophy Now
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am
-
Grillosopher
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2023 4:53 pm
Re: The Best Criticism of Ethical Egoism
Ayn Rand did indeed deal with this issue. Her unique solution was to ground the entire set of value leaden concepts (eg good, bad, right, wrong, ought etc.) to both the physical and mental requirements of a human’s life and flourishing. On a deserted island, a solitary person would STILL be confronted by moral questions that reality would impose on him, should he wish to remain alive. The dead do not need to concern themselves with any issues as all, moral or otherwise.
That makes the distinction between one person’s preferences and another’s NOT arbitrary since in order to live and flourish as the kind of entity that you are it is NATURE (not whim) that determines the kinds of actions that are necessary to keep the process of life going over the LONG term. Huge emphasis on the LONG part since, unlike the lower forms of animals, we are intellectual beings who can see and plan into our future and HAVE to think and plan LONG RANGE.
In a social context, that means that treating others “badly” is “bad” because in the long run it will inevitably, one way or another, frustrate our own ability to pursue our own happiness.
So, to use your lost wallet example, in Objectivism (the name AR gave to her philosophy) it would most emphatically be a MORAL and JUST necessity to return the money provided you knew who the owner was since you did not earn the money and you would want to live in a society where your own lost property would be returned to you someday.
Another common sense example of this is nutrition. As human beings, we all have a basic set of common nutrition requirements but at the same time the exact mixture is contextual TO THE INDIVIDUAL and his/her life, goals, knowledge and preferences. One person may prefer chicken over beef or be a vegan but the necessary proteins and such are the same even though the details are different. It is the same with the Objectivist theory of ethical egoism.
See AR’s book The Virtue of Selfishness or read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead for a dramatization of these ideas.
That makes the distinction between one person’s preferences and another’s NOT arbitrary since in order to live and flourish as the kind of entity that you are it is NATURE (not whim) that determines the kinds of actions that are necessary to keep the process of life going over the LONG term. Huge emphasis on the LONG part since, unlike the lower forms of animals, we are intellectual beings who can see and plan into our future and HAVE to think and plan LONG RANGE.
In a social context, that means that treating others “badly” is “bad” because in the long run it will inevitably, one way or another, frustrate our own ability to pursue our own happiness.
So, to use your lost wallet example, in Objectivism (the name AR gave to her philosophy) it would most emphatically be a MORAL and JUST necessity to return the money provided you knew who the owner was since you did not earn the money and you would want to live in a society where your own lost property would be returned to you someday.
Another common sense example of this is nutrition. As human beings, we all have a basic set of common nutrition requirements but at the same time the exact mixture is contextual TO THE INDIVIDUAL and his/her life, goals, knowledge and preferences. One person may prefer chicken over beef or be a vegan but the necessary proteins and such are the same even though the details are different. It is the same with the Objectivist theory of ethical egoism.
See AR’s book The Virtue of Selfishness or read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead for a dramatization of these ideas.
Last edited by Grillosopher on Mon Jul 31, 2023 1:51 am, edited 3 times in total.