Rachels's Argument Against Ethical Egoism

[SteveGrossman 0]

He replied: "Well, what if someday you found out that you were mistaken about this? What if you found out it actually was in your self-interest to hurt others?....I’m pretty sure I walked right into a trap.

←

Yes, you walked into a trap. You should have asked, "Is that a realistic or unrealistic 'if'?" Subjectivists experience a brief awareness of their own absurdity at this question. Gideon Reich is correct in noting that your prof's context was Pragmatist fragmentation. See Rand's "'Conflicts' of Men's Interests" for more. Note clearly that advocates of social conflict evade the overwhelming extent to which most people trade with one another most of the time in free societies. See Rand's "Ethics of Emergencies" for more.

Now that you recognize the sleazy destructiveness of mainstream philosophers, keep your head down and your ears open, get into grad school and become a rational teacher. But _if_ my advice is unrealistic, you could have replied, "I'd like to kill you because you advocate sacrifice but I need your recommendation to grad school." javascript:emoticon('')

[SCS 0]

Did they accept your thesis and did you get into grad school?

←

They all loved the first half of my thesis, which was simply a negative deductive argument (because professors just love to tear theories apart). However, they hated the second half, where I put together my positive arguments (becuase again, they love to tear theories apart). So, my grade reflected that. But, I still "Graduated with Distinction."

Re: grad school: I'm still trying!

[PRN 0]

They all loved the first half of my thesis, which was simply a negative deductive argument (because professors just love to tear theories apart). However, they hated the second half, where I put together my positive arguments (becuase again, they love to tear theories apart). So, my grade reflected that. But, I still "Graduated with Distinction."

Re: grad school: I'm still trying!   

←

May I ask what your topic was?

[SCS 0]

May I ask what your topic was?

Sure - though, I don't want to hijack your thread on Rachels, which has had some really great responses.

But, since you asked , my thesis was on intellectual property and liberty (and why they don't conflict), and it had two parts. The first part was a critique of authors who accept Lockean labor theory for tangible property while denying Lockean labor theory for intangible property. It was a simple conditional argument: if you accept x, then you should accept y. The second part of my paper argued that intellectual property is legitimate and has a strong moral foundation - as strong as tangible property. Of course, the second part was highly controversial, given that most theorists today think that intellectual property is merely a convenience - not to mention that they think that principles for tangible property are completely malleable.

[Rose Lake 0]

James Rachels, Ph.D. (1941-2003) was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. His book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003) is being used as a text in one of my philosophy classes.

In this book he discusses ethical egoism, and even includes a section on Ayn Rand. His final analysis is that egoism fails as a moral theory, and this conclusion is based on an argument which, he claims, "comes closest to an outright refutation of Ethical Egoism." The argument is as follows:

"The Argument That Ethical Egoism is Unacceptably Arbitrary. Ethical Egoism [...] advocates that each of us divide the world into two categories of people—ourselves and all the rest—and that we regard the interests of those in the first group as more important than the interests of those in the second group. But each of us can ask, what is the difference between me and everyone else that justifies placing myself in this special category? Am I more intelligent? Do I enjoy my life more? [...] In short, what makes me so special? Failing an answer, it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine in the same way that racism is arbitrary. [...] It is this realization, that we are on a par with one another, that is the deepest reason why our morality must include some recognition of the needs of others, and why, then, Ethical Egoism fails as a moral theory." (89)

←

In this excerpt, 'each of us', and 'ourselves' identify a group that consists of every individual. So 'all the rest' could only refer, literally, to no one, i.e. to a zero. (Therefore any phrase that refers back to this zero, i.e. 'those in the second group', 'everyone else', and 'others' must also equal zero.)

"The Argument That Ethical Egoism is Unacceptably Arbitrary. Ethical Egoism [...] advocates that each of us [every individual] divide the world into two categories of people—ourselves [the group consisting of every individual] and all the rest [there is no one else]— and that we regard the interests of those in the first group [every individual] as more important than the interests of those in the second [no one]. But each of us can ask, what is the difference between me and [a zero] that justifies placing myself in this special category? [The 'special category' is being an 'individual'.] Am I more intelligent [than a zero]? Do I enjoy my life more [than a zero]? [...] In short, what makes me [an individual rather than a zero]? Failing an answer, it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine in the same way that racism is arbitrary. [...] It is this realization, that we [individuals] are on a par with one another [each other], that is the deepest reason why our morality must include some recognition of the needs of [a zero], and why, then, Ethical Egoism fails as a moral theory."

Utter nonsense, “But there’s always a purpose in nonsense” as Toohey himself warned us. In this case, the only “argument” against rational egoism, is to erase the individual completely, i.e. to equate him with a zero. And of course this can only be achieved by utterly irrational and/or dishonest means.

[piz 0]

In this excerpt, 'each of us', and 'ourselves' identify a group that consists of every individual. So 'all the rest' could only refer, literally, to no one, i.e. to a zero. (Therefore any phrase that refers back to this zero, i.e. 'those in the second group', 'everyone else', and 'others' must also equal zero.)

←

I think you're misinterpreting him (not that that's difficult). It's more a case of sloppy language than anything else. What Rachels should have said, if he wanted to be clear about what I think he means, is "the egoist divides the set of all people into two subsets, himself and everyone else." It wouldn't make his argument any more correct, though.

[PRN 0]

I think you're misinterpreting him (not that that's difficult). It's more a case of sloppy language than anything else. What Rachels should have said, if he wanted to be clear about what I think he means, is "the egoist divides the set of all people into two subsets, himself and everyone else." It wouldn't make his argument any more correct, though.

←

I think this is what Rachels meant:

1) Morality requires impartiality

2) Egoism divides people into two subsets, oneself and everyone else, and is therefore not impartial

3) Egoism therefore cannot be correct

To refute his argument one must challenge premise #1

This premise, called “the moral point of view” or “the requirement of impartiality” is so entrenched in mainstream philosophy that every mainstream moral theory accepts it as uncontroversial.

I found an excellent discussion of this issue in a presentation to the Ayn Rand Society, “Comments on Tara Smith's Viable Values,” under the heading “Ethical Egoism vs. the Moral Point of View.”

Here's the link: http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/es...uescomment.html

It was so interesting I ordered Viable Values right after reading it.

[SteveGrossman 0]

I think this is what Rachels meant: 1) Morality requires impartiality

←

Yes, it's an intrinsic "special," an alleged part of reality and the egoist is hogging it. Rand implicitly identifies the objective "special." "The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value-and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man." [Obj Ethics, pb, 27]

The following may help to understand "ethical impartiality" and its opposition to the objective special:

"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith. The dogmatism [certainty] of metaphysics, that is, the preconception that it is possible to make headway in metaphysics without a previous criticism ["prior" to the consciousness of existernce] of pure reason [his rationalist strawman], is the source of all that unbelief, always very dogmatic [certain], which wars against [selfless] morality." [Kant, CPR, Muller, 1966, xxxix]

Morality applies to all individuals in that each individual in morally special to himself. Common sensically, special to whom?

[PRN 0]

Yes, it's an intrinsic "special," an alleged part of reality and the egoist is hogging it. Rand implicitly identifies the objective "special." "The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value-and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man." [Obj Ethics, pb, 27]

The following may help to understand "ethical impartiality" and its opposition to the objective special:

"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith. The dogmatism [certainty] of metaphysics, that is, the preconception that it is possible to make headway in metaphysics without a previous criticism ["prior" to the consciousness of existernce] of pure reason [his rationalist strawman], is the source of all that unbelief, always very dogmatic [certain], which wars against [selfless] morality." [Kant, CPR, Muller, 1966, xxxix]

Morality applies to all individuals in that each individual in morally special to himself. Common sensically, special to whom?

←

Yes, I have heard from several people that "the moral point of view" has its roots in Kant. I hope to study Kant in depth eventually.

[Rose Lake 0]

I think you're misinterpreting him (not that that's difficult). It's more a case of sloppy language than anything else. What Rachels should have said, if he wanted to be clear about what I think he means, is "the egoist divides the set of all people into two subsets, himself and everyone else." It wouldn't make his argument any more correct, though.

←

No, it was not misinterpretation. It is taking him seriously. The 'interpretation' is a literal reading. It is not my job to correct the sloppy language of writers, or to try to understand what they think they meant to say.

Regardless of what was occurring (or not occurring) in his mind when he wrote this, I offered the exact literal meaning of what he wrote. All one has to do to confirm this, is to read it with attention.

This kind of writing is worth nothing more, and would never earn even that much attention if it were not palmed off on college students by frauds posing as teachers. I am appalled, if not surprised, by this being taken seriously in college.

On a positive note, I second the recommendation of Tara Smith's Viable Values, which I found valuable.

[SteveGrossman 0]

It is not my job to correct the sloppy language of writers, or to try to understand what they think they meant to say. Regardless of what was occurring (or not occurring) in his mind when he wrote this, I offered the exact literal meaning of what he wrote. All one has to do to confirm this, is to read it with attention. This kind of writing is worth nothing more, and would never earn even that much attention if it were not palmed off on college students by frauds posing as teachers. I am appalled, if not surprised, by this being taken seriously in college.

←

In a Structuralism class, a philosophy prof, replying to my request for definitions, said, "Let the meaning emerge." It was, sadly, years later that I knew how I should have replied. I would tell you but the moderator might get upset. Use your imagination.

[piz 0]

No, it was not misinterpretation. It is taking him seriously. The 'interpretation' is a literal reading. It is not my job to correct the sloppy language of writers, or to try to understand what they think they meant to say.

Regardless of what was occurring (or not occurring) in his mind when he wrote this, I offered the exact literal meaning of what he wrote. All one has to do to confirm this, is to read it with attention.

←

I disagree that that's the meaning, but I don't think it's worth either of our time to pursue the differences in our interpretations. Seeing as either way Rachels is bunk, and all.

This kind of writing is worth nothing more, and would never earn even that much attention if it were not palmed off on college students by frauds posing as teachers. I am appalled, if not surprised, by this being taken seriously in college.

←

I agree completely with this.

On a positive note, I second the recommendation of Tara Smith's Viable Values, which I found valuable.

←

I also agree completely with this.

[PRN 0]

This afternoon I ran into one of the other students in my ethics class.

He said: "That was a valiant effort you made the other day defending ethical egoism."

[Rose Lake 0]

I disagree that that's the meaning, but I don't think it's worth either of our time to pursue the differences in our interpretations. Seeing as either way Rachels is bunk, and all.

←

Do you mean to tell me that you don't think this disagreement is worth a good fight? Now where did I leave those boxing gloves?

This afternoon I ran into one of the other students in my ethics class.

He said: "That was a valiant effort you made the other day defending ethical egoism."

←

One would hope that he'll retain the memory of your action as an encouraging instance of man defending his values; though even if he does not, I'd guess that you will.