Talk:Ethical egoism

Balance and Multiple Sources

Rachels is the only source cited for vast majority of the article. Can this be remedied? Both on the criticism and the proponent views? Thanks.--Dchem (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up issues

Right at beginning:

". . . self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from (1) rational egoism, which holds that it is (2) rational to act in one's self-interest."

(2) reads like using a word (1) in its own definition. Though I don't like to change usage where I am not knowledgeable or expert in the field, sloppy language is fair game. Someone fix, pls? Thank you.

I just attempted to make at least one well-explained language cleanup change to the first paragraph and it was immediately reverted. Would someone be willing to review my change and the subsequent Undo and provide feedback? –Post Epoch (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Some issues

A couple of things in the current entry concern me:

• The current text makes it sound as if it is impossible to seriously advocate for ethical egoism while retaining a traditional view of self-interest (i.e. that one cannot seriously advocate for selfishness). Based on the given definitions of ethical egoism, and of morality, this is untrue.
• Ayn Rand was removed in a recent revert; the reverter (Jod) cited that Rand was "just a popular amateur" and "not really a 'noted philosopher'". While I'm not the biggest fan of Rand, this strikes me as a dangerously narrow view of what constitutes being "noted" and/or a "philosopher". She certainly wasn't an "amateur" in the proper sense of the word, considering that she made money from her books; indeed, some much more famous philosophers from history might actually be termed "amateurs" since they never made money from their philosophical thoughts. Rand also enjoys no small share of ongoing popularity, regardless of one's opinion of the quality of her works. (I could never get through Atlas Shrugged, myself.)

I'd like to fix these issues without starting an edit war; please comment. I'll make the changes if I don't have any feedback in the next couple of days. Ideas on how to best incorporate these changes in a NPOV fashion are especially welcome.

- Korpios 19:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

External links

I'm tempted to delete the following external link:

• Selfcenteredness — versus God-Centeredness An article arguing that, to get into a proper relationship with God, one must work on "the destruction of one’s lower self (ego)"

Now it may be worthwhile for the article to point out somehow that ethical egoism is rather incompatible with Christianity. But can someone suggest a way to do this by linking to an existing Wikipedia article, rather than linking to an external page? Or if we must link to an external page, surely there is a better one?

Ideas?

--Ryguasu 22:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, citing external sources is very important to wikipedia. See WP:CITE. It's the only way to be sure that we're not literally making stuff up. Now, if you think this particular source is inadequate, you're welcome to cite a better one. -- Nikodemos 04:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Misc.

Adding weasel tag for "many contend" at beginning of 4th paragraph. I cannot change this expertly but someone should.Radiooperator 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bolded text is usually a NPOV giveaway.

Christianity is anti-egoist

I just removed the sentence: "In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the pursuit of the individual's ends without consideration of the greater good is the basis for sin." It sounds like original research. As a Christian and an ethical egoist, I've never heard it put this way at all. If there is a source this can be assigned to, please replace it and source it. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See above [1]. See also Luke 10: 30-37 in the Bible. -- Nikodemos 04:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The good Samaritan story makes no claim about the basis of sin. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "the basis of sin" was not a good phrase to use. But Jesus certainly emphasized altruism in his teachings. -- Nikodemos 05:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

He advocated benevolence (and of course self-interest can prescribe benevolence). I'm not sure he advocated altruism. But, I'm far from an expert on Christianity. RJII 05:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my personal beliefs aside, the issue isn't whether or not ethical egoism is a problem for Christianity, but whether or not sources say it is. When we start drawing conclusions about the nature of sin based on a story Jesus told, we're doing original research. If we find reliable sources that support the conclusions, then they go in.

And, having looked at the source we have currently, I can't see how it can be used as an authority on Christianity. Let's find a better source, or the claim has to go again. There's no point in talking about how some random book says such-and-such about Christianity. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Before we can do that, you'll have to define what counts as an authority on Christianity in your view. From my experience in other articles, most editors will accept anything published on a respectable website as a valid source - even if it is just a "random book" on the subject. -- Nikodemos 07:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the claim being made. If we're going to make a strong claim about the nature of Christianity, we need a Christian philopher or theologian or something, I think. If not a very academic one, at least someone popularly known. Because if no major Christian philosopher or theologian has made such a claim, then it can't be all that important to the religion. For some claims on hard to source subjects, random books might be okay, at least until better sources are found. But claims about an entire religion seem to me to require a fairly good source--especially considering that there are centuries of good sources about Christianity out there.

If I'm applying this standard inconsistently, I don't intend to. I wouldn't object to removing similarly sourced claims of similar strength from other articles if there was doubt about them. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of ethical egoism

No criticism?

Like anything connected to Randism on Wikipedia, this article is not remotely NPOV. There have been extensive criticisms made of ethical egoism, many of which are not religious in their character at all.64.251.50.50 13:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson quote

I question whether that quotation from Thomas Jefferson was really meant as a refutation of ethical egoism. It sounds to me that he was saying that an individual's actions concerning himself are not the domain of morality; that is, that actions that do not involve others are not rightly the concern of laws regarding right and wrong. I have difficulty finding anything in that passage which claims that acting in one's self-interest is immoral; rather that purely self-regarding actions are amoral, beyond the domain of morality.

I agree. Jefferson quote is not applicable to this article. Max Stirner was quoted earlier in the article that he was the first one to use the formalized term of ethical egoism. Stirner is from latter half of 1800's, while Jefferson's quote was from much earlier, prior to the formalized definition of word egoism (please give an example if this is wrong). I recommend that changes be made on account that Jefferson's quote is either 1) inconsistent with the context of the term egoism as being described in this article (which is the term defined post-Stirner) or 2) quote is incorrectly placed in egoism article when it should be in rational egoism article. Finally the quote does not specifically state "ethical egoism," it only states "egoism," which may be used with different definition in mind. --Dchem (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Counter-Criticism?

Why there are counter-critisim existing in almost every term of critisism? It directly defeats the purpose of criticism. This is not a nice format of WP I'm afraid Anon J (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ethical egoists?

Nietzsche?

This seems a very dubious claim seeing as Nietzsche considered all ethical statements to be false. I will remove his inclusion if there is no contention.–Skomorokh 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that Nietzsche belongs here. I understand how a superficial reading of him (like the reading offered by Nazis) might lead one to this conclusion. The problem is, the definition of the article requires a notion of "self"-interest, which requires a coherent notion of "self." Nietzsche, however, radically questioned the meaning of "self." Slrubenstein

The description on the page, to be fair, simply says that these philosophers might reasonably be called ethical egoists; I think that is at least a reasonable reading in all these cases, though maybe not the best one. I also don't think that a notion of "self-interest" requires a substantial notion of a "self"; the "self-" prefix can simply be construed as a reflexive pronoun. John's self-interest is an interest in John, etc.

Nozick?

Whoa, whoa, since when is Nozick an ethical egoist? He argued for vegetarianism out of respect for animals, after all!

I confess, I stopped reading Nozick when I lost patience with his habit of trying to address too many subjects in too little space. So I am not in a good position to answer this query. But I know he stated that Ayn Rand's writings are worthy of attention, so maybe that caused someone to conclude this (?). Michael Hardy 19:58 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Philosophical Aspects of Privacy

Question. Which school of philisophical thought would hold closest to the idea that individual privacy is valued above all other societal needs?--Dr who1975 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Jod is mistaken about Ayn Rand; we had this discussion last November on the discussion page for list of philosophers; here is an excerpt:

I would submit that the authors and editors of the following works are among those who "seriously stud[y] philosophy":

Encyclopedia of Ethics by Lawrence C. Becker (Routledge 2001), p. 1440.

Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Routledge, 1999).

Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia, edited by J. J. Chambliss (Garland 1996), p. 302.

The above list Ayn Rand among philosophers, contrary to the troll's bigotted assertion.

The following professors of philosophy will tell you that Ayn Rand was an important philosopher, contrary to the bigot's assertion:

• Lisa Dolling (head of the honors program in theology at St. John's University in New York)
• Tibor Machan, (Stanford University. See his home page at [2].)
• Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky)
• Douglas Rasmussen (St. John's University, New York)
• Eric Mack (Tulane University)
• Aeon Skoble (Bridgewater State College, Massachusetts)
• Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin)
• Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
• Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, SUNY Buffalo)
• Roderick Long (Auburn University)
• Slavoj Zizek (The European Graduate School)
• Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder)
• Jonathan Jacobs (University of Pennsylvania)
• Wayne Davis (Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University)
• Stephen Parrish (Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan)
• Stephen R. C. Hicks (Rockford College, Illinois)
• Fred Seddon (University of Pittsburgh? (I'm not sure of this affiliation -- more later))
• Allan Gotthelf, (University of Pittsburgh), (who is also Secretary of the Ayn Rand Society, an official 'group' of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association).
• Andrew Bernstein, (Duke University (I'm not sure this one is up to date))
• Gary Hull, (Duke University)

Michael Hardy 19:46, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

By the way, the list above is of course a partial list. And also, one may list professors in other humanities fields than philosophy. I will also take up the anonymous posters challenge to list journal articles. That will take some time, but let's start with this one:

• Leonard Peikoff, Aristotle's Intuitive Induction, The New Scholasticism, Vol. 59, p. 30-53, 1985.

Michael Hardy 22:15, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Recalling the dishonest claim again:

"Quite literally no one who seriously studies philosophy anywhere considers Ayn Rand a philosopher. Hunt through the index of any philosophy book or journal you like, and you won't find her name cited; look through the philosophy section af any library, and you won't find books on her. Look through the course syllabi for any philosophy department you want and you won't find them reading anything she wrote."

A scholar at New York University has told me that Ayn Rand has been discussed in the following scholarly journals (contrary to the claim about "any ... journal you like"); I'll try to cite articles on this discussion page as I find the cites:

• Philosophical Books
• Review of Metaphysics
• The Monist
• The Personalist
• Social Philosophy and Policy
• Catholic World
• American Journal of Economics and Sociology
• Germano-Salavica: Canadian Journal of Germanic and Slavic Comparative and Interdisciplinary Studies
• College English
• University of Windsor Review
• Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, Impact of Science on Society
• Journal of Popular Culture
• Cycnos
• Aristos
• Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
• The Occasional Review
• Reason Papers
• Critical Review
• Journal of Libertarian Studies
• The Humanist
• Commentary
• Nomos
• English Journal
• Journal of Thought
• Journal of Philosophical Research
• New University Thought
• Journal of Business Ethics
• Library Journal
• Choice
• Journal of Canadian Studies
• Social Justice Review
• Teaching Philosophy
• Resources for American Literary Study
• Policy Review

Contrary to the claim about "any philosophy book ... you like", she is the topic of articles in the following encyclopedias:

• Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Encyclopedia of Ethics
• Encyclopedia of Libertarianism
• Encyclopedia of New York State
• American Authors and Books
• American Novelists of Today
• Encyclopedia of World Literature
• Contemporary Authors
• Contemporary Literary Criticism
• Contemporary Novelists
• A Handbook of American Literature
• Contemporary Women Philosophers
• Oxford Companion to American Literature
• Reader's Encyclopedia of American Literature
• Twentieth Century Authors

You forgot the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Of all the sources listed surely having an entry in the SEP makes one a philosopher -- though it's hard to read the entry without laughing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.157.53 (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

clarification needed in "types of ethical egoism" section

Hi, everyone. I just made some attempts at clarifying a few lines which I thought were very unclear (or at least difficult to understand) in the Intro and "Types of E.E." section. Hopefully my edits retained the intended meanings of the original text; feel free to review and edit them.

However, I was unable to really understand the difference(s) between "individual ethical egoism" and "universal ethical egoism" as they are currently defined. It would be great if someone who knows the difference could clarify, as it seems to me that their definitions are currently semantically equivalent ("An individual ethical egoist would hold that all people should do whatever benefits them", "a universal ethical egoist would argue that everyone should act in ways that are in their own interest"). I suspect that part of the confusion may arise from ambiguity due to the misuse of third-person plural pronouns. In the second definition, "their" disagrees with its antecedent, "everyone"; in the first, it seems to me that "them" should be replaced with "each individually" to clarify its meaning. However, even if both of these were changed, the meanings of these two definitions still seem equivalent to me.Brad Gibbons (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, I was coming here to say just that, i.e.,

• I don't see the difference between "individual ethical egoism" and "universal ethical egoism".
• I suspect the problem is the use of third-person plural pronouns.

If anyone knows the difference between these two kinds of ethical egoism please do fix this. Thanks. --PoisonedQuill (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro-ethical egoism arguments

As we have a section on criticisms of the theory, we ought surely to have a correspondent on lines of reasoning in its favour. James Rachels was not far wrong when he asserted that "the theory is asserted more often than it is argued for." Best, Crusoe (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No matter. I have just done a rough job of it myself, using the arguments outlined in Rachels's "Ethical Egoism" (1986). Ever, Crusoe (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The article says "All of our commonly-accepted moral duties, from doing no harm unto others to speaking always the truth to keeping promises, are rooted in the one fundamental principle of self-interest." On the face of it, this makes no sense. In other words, please explain it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.24.67 (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rand again

As regards the statement above which declares that "[t]he following professors of philosophy will tell you that Ayn Rand was an important philosopher", it is interesting to note that, according to Rachels, Rand is "a writer little heeded by professional philosophers". I have duly quoted this in the article. Crusoe (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

egoism, altruism, and libertarianism

There was a pre-existing comment indicating that libertarianism can be based on egoism, but not necessarily. I made it more concise by stating that libertarianism can be driven by a sense of altruism. From the cited source:

It is hardly altruistic, in the ordinary sense of the term, to coerce other people to behave in supposedly selfless ways in order to achieve your personal vision of the greater collective good even if that greater good is thereby realized. But it is unarguably immoral to coerce others using that rationale when, in fact, it becomes painfully obvious that the exact opposite results.

72.95.247.153 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Cleanup

The section on criticisms should be cleaned up by someone who knows more about the topic than I do. -Jaardon (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Retort?

As someone relatively unfamiliar with the finer points of Wiki etiquette I am curious about that rules regarding retorts. I suspect it would do no good to hold an active debate by editing the article itself. Indeed, what I have read of Wikipedia's history indicates that this is a source of trouble.

In the interests of disclosure, I consider myself an ethical egoist and I find the conclusion on which this article ends somewhat frustrating. I understand that it falls under the heading of "Criticisms" so there is no rational cause to assume egoism would have a defense there but nevertheless, it seems a somewhat weak criticism, if the editor of this article will take no offense as none is intended.

To wit, "Failing an answer, it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine, in the same way that racism is arbitrary. [...] We should care about the interests of other people for the very same reason we care about our own interests; for their needs and desires are comparable to our own."

My concern is twofold. First, that this comparison with racism seems an appeal to emotion and unnecessarily inflammatory (although if a valid concern, the blame lies with the original source, not the editor). Second and more importantly I am concerned that this quote presumes that ethical egoism and all the advocates thereof, fail to provide an answer to why one's own interests are treated differently from those of others. By its placement at the end of the article it seems to read such that it can be taken as the de facto conclusion of said article as well. However, the objection has an easy enough retort.

To wit, One's own interests are treated differently because oneself is a distinct entity from others with a distinct experience of the world.

To elaborate (skip past this and the next two paragraphs if uninterested in elaboration). It is a simple scientific reality that all of an individual's commonly acknowledged senses have their only source in one single body, and that further, we have an instinctual imperative to self-preserve. Further personal knowledge and memories have the same center in the individual. Therefore, it is not only not arbitrary, it is perhaps imperative and essential that human beings make a distinction on some level between the self and not self, whether this informs their ethical decisions or not.

Anything else involves turning a blind eye to a certain, never fully escapable (except arguably in certain transcendent traditions) separation. And if transcendental traditions are the sticking point than doesn't this objection to ethical egoism amount to challenging an ethical system because its followers have not reached (or necessarily aspired to) transcendental enlightenment?

Indeed the body text contains a fine enough (although still incomplete) counter argument for the article's final criticism, if it's comparative placement didn't make it's impact less than the critique. To wit, One treats an other differently from the self out of respect for said other's sovereignty.

To conclude my point, my concern is that, not necessarily through anyone's intention, the POV of this article reads as somewhat slanted against the ethical position which it describes and ends by leaving an easily refutable criticism as the last word (possibly implying to some extant that their is not an effective counterargument). Is there a proper recourse in Wiki etiquette for this problem I perceive? 67.42.9.141 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Too much Rachels-responding-to-critics

The criticism section gives undue weight to Rachels' responses to critics, and creates the impression that the debate has been settled or has reached an equilibrium based on these arguments. That would be inaccurate. We should consider giving a little less space to Rachels, adding more egoist philosophers (from above), and trying to find a good statement of where the debate ultimately stands. I'll try to take a look and see if I can find anything relevant.65.184.183.118 (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What has been removed is not Rachels material but Rand material which contrasts with it. It would be a gross distortion to exclude Rand's positions on the very issues that Rachels raises in this section. Having indicated Rand's view earlier, it would make it appear as if Rand had no answer to these issues. Rand's view informs Professor Machan, Professor Gotthelf, Professor Tara Smith, etc., and the ~ entire ~ list of contemporary "Proponents" (listed above in the article), and thus it is her view that would appear to be lacking if the the entire article ends on these criticisms without mentioning her response.Pelagius1 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor Article

Does anyone else think this article is poor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.242.123 (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain more specifically what you would like to change to this article? Lova Falk talk 12:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Rachels' Quote from "Elements of Moral Philosophy" and "Justifications" Section

In regards to the section on ethical egoism's justifications, does it seem like the amount of direct quotation from James Rachels' book is a bit excessive with regards to copyright and/or basic overview to anyone else? While directly quoting a few words seems suitable, pulling a whole paragraph from a frequently-updated book just doesn't seem like the best approach. Just on that note if Rachels' work is to be used, perhaps some paraphrases from what his summary of the argument could ameliorate such faults. Furthermore, I feel that the whole section on "Justifications" would be be objective if not taken solely from Rachels. Thoughts? RyanQuinlan (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)