emphryio

To Pseudonym
At first I just thought you were talking nonsense but then you said:

This is extremely similar to what I believe. The only difference is that I would consider the above a type of morality. Egotism. I personally prefer to call it egotism with forethought or something along those lines.

I said in another thread:
Interesting thing is that until your last post there in that Political thread, I thought you sounded quite silly. (Stupid mindless provocative nonsense.) And yet except for defining words differently we completely agree that all people are egotists.

(You did a much better job of describing why egotists appear to outwardly adhere to other moral codes.)

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: emphryio ]</p>

Clutch

Pseudonym's views were nonsense except for the claim that morality is whatever suits people's self-interest?

Talk about damning by faint praise!

Vogelfrei

Against the thesis that we always act for our own happiness:

People can act in their self-interest without acting for their own happiness. This is clear because happiness is a mood or state of consciousness, whereas self-interest is a factual assessment of what one wants (which is oftentimes a purely cold-blooded assessment). A person might be convinced that self-sacrifice is good, and thus give away all his money and possessions and live an unhappy life on the streets -- this is acting in self-interest (ie doing what one wants), but clearly need not be a joyous situation. One emotions might not be in sync with one's purely cerebral assessments, after all.

Against the thesis that we always act in our own self-interest:

The thesis is, of course, trivially true for any *person* -- a person acts based on decisions, and decides based on desires/"what he wants" (in the broadest sense). However, it's worth questioning whether coherent selves (required to be a person in this sense) actually exist. Clearly, someone who is totally delirious can neither said to be altruistic nor egoistic -- his actions are *random* because he has lost his ability to make decisions and influence his actions through those decisions. He has lost this ability due to having disturbed thought processes; he no longer has a "self" because there is no tonic control/meta-awareness directing where his thoughts wander. However, reality admits of degrees, and unless a person is willing to commit to the philosophically-problematic idea that normal people possess "perfect coherence of thought", it seems that the normal person is differentiated from the delirious person *quantitatively* rather than qualitatively, and so they lack the ability to be fully egoistic; instead, they inhabit some nether-realm between idealized full egoism and delirious, disconnected thoughts and actions.

optimist

"If morality doesn't exist on account of man's unalloyed self-interest, then the objective effects thereof are non-existent."

I will not argue for either side in this argument, but I would simply like to point out that "egoism" is not the default position. I had a roommate once who thought he was winning an argument because a girl couldn't give him a reason for being altruistic to other people. He was being *rational* for being egotistical, since he could be given no reason to be altruistic.

This however is based on a false assumption. Egoism must be defended with reasons just as altruism must. Neither is default. The default position is no morality: that the "objective effects [of morality] are non-existent."

I would think people become egoists because no one is able to give a reasoned argument behind an altruistic moral system. However, an egotist cannot give a rational argument behind their egoistic system either. If no arguments for either exist, then neither is more rational. They are both arational, or non-rational. Rationality has nothing to say about either.

So a egoist's proper reasoning should not say they are being more or less moral by being selfish, but that there is no morality and this just happens to be the way they have chosen to act. In truth they are nhilists or relativists (the same thing in my mind), but I am not invokeing the bad connotations of those words. Simply a statement of fact. Egoism is a form of nhilism.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: optimist ]</p>

emphryio

No. They SOUNDED like nonsense until the last post. Then I realized it was yet another example of how pitiful the human communication system is.

People cannot attempt to act in their own self-interest without also attempting to act for their own happiness. Being imperfect, they may fail miserably on both accounts. (I think we just define happiness differently.)

People don't become egoists, they are simply that way from birth.

???
I think some people make an assumption when they hear the word "egoist" that it means running naked through the streets cutting people's heads off while snorting cocaine. Is that more or less the assumption you are making? Actually it means acting in one's self-interest. This can be done with a view to the long or short term.

Keeping the people around me happy is in my own self-interest. How is that irrational? Eating something when I'm hungry is in my self-interest. How is that irrational?

I would call it egoism with forethought. I consider it the only real moral system. (Pseudonym feels it isn't a moral system?) If you follow any rules prescribed by other moral systems, you only do so because you feel that is the key to best following the egoism with forethought moral system.

For example, if you are a christian who believes in heaven and hell, it's in your best self-interest to almost completely focus on the happiness you think you will get after death. Still, you are an egoist. You are simply focusing on the extremely long term.


One question I have concerns the correct timeframe to concentrate.

NialScorva

Since Psuedonym hasn't responded directly, and this is more of a Morality thing, it's heading over there. You might consider sending him a private message if you're interested in his response, directing him to the new thread location.

Totalitarianist

Sorry for not replying. I haven't enough time lately. I will reply shortly.

99Percent

People don't become egoists, they are simply that way from birth.

Yes, except for the fact that your genes will make you act in ways that will undermine your own complete self interest.

If living beings where to pursue entirely their own self interest there would be no offspring and life would cease to exist.

This is something Ayn Rand failed to acknowledge or very conveniently did not want to face and thusly spared us from little Ayn Rands walking around on the face of the Earth right now...

echidna

We always act in our self-interest, therefore every act, including altruism is selfish.

So what if literal selflessness doesn’t exist when it comes to our actions, since self and conscious actions are inseparable ? Not really rocket science. Isn’t this the usual discussion which we all had in high school ?

However post-highschool, most discussions understand that “selfless acts” is literally self-referential and therefore meaningless, however continue to use the concept of selflessness to mean conscious actions to benefit others. Clearly this is quite distinguishable from consciously not helping another person.

Of course helping others can benefit oneself in many ways, some directly, some just by the knowledge that you are helping. Endorphins on the brain, neural paths linked to generate feelings of satisfaction, who knows. So what ? I really don’t understand what your point is.

Totalitarianist

On second thought, I do not understand the point of this thread. There's nothing really to debate over, aside from the fact that you erroneously labelled my previous posts "nonsense".