Ethical Egoism

[Daijaga]

I agree. Buddhism makes the same claim, everything we do is seflish. Even drawing breath is selfish, as your dening air to another, consuming food another could have had, giving money to a movie theater rather than a charity, in fact having money at all. So, in my opinion, yes, every senetient being is an "ethical egoist"

[whiteypoker]

I'd like to point out here, that by us saying people are ethical egoists, they in fact SHOULD or OUGHT to think in terms of self interest. I suppose a certain population of us believe human beings are in fact "psychological" egoist-that is, act in their own self interest. But SHOULD or OUGHT we act like that.

It became clear to me that in my late night typing of the post that I left this part out...my appologies.

Whitey

[Tobias]

well, if we should or ought. Thats an interesting question

I think we do, we should, and we ought, due to the fact that that is what we do in life.

That is all

[shadokastur]

I don't think we really have much of a choice to the contrary.
Besides, we're built this way for a reason and figuring this reason out is an important step that we all try to accomplish via different methods.

Opps. I think if I continue that I'll drag this thread off topic so I'll stop there.

[Silver Adept]

Ah, I wondered what might have been the point if the conclusion was already drawn.

Should we think in terms of our own self-interest? Not all the time. At some point, for a civilization or a social order to exist, people must change from making decisions that benefit only themselves to decisions that benefit the group they are associated with.

Admittedly, a large part of the time, the person reaps the benefits of sacrificing now at a later time, sometimes with dividends, so that could be considered long-term self-interest. Even so, for complex society to exist, we shouldn't be acting completely in our own self-interest all the time.

[Graillik Tur]

See, now we're into a completely different realm of thought. Should we think in terms of self interest...no. Do we...yes. Always we at some point come down to thinking of what is best for us. What will make us happy, and what it will cost to get that. Inevitably it will cost someone else something that we want in order to make us happy. Now...this works for tangible things, but emotional things, such as doing good work because it makes us feel good, and not because it is the 'right' thing to do...I'm not sure. That is a whole nother ball of wax that will take some time to figure out.

[whiteypoker]

If we don't have a choice in the matter, as shado states, do we really have freewill?

Why should we not think in terms of self? We have already progressed past the point of a nacent civilization. In a society that already has established rules, the game you and I are participating in currently, it is in your best interest to follow the laws and therefore, society does not break down (assuming the vast majority of the population participates, which it appears to do). So at this stage in humanity, why not do things for us?

[Graillik Tur]

The only answer I can give to that is a answer that means essentially nothing to you and everything to me.

Because it's not always the right thing to do for ones self when you can do for someone else.

[Silver Adept]

Well, some of those rules of civilization tell you that if you want to keep things functioning harmoniously, you act outside of selfish interest. People who only act in selfish interest strain the bonds of the civilization, because civilization requires cooperation.

It is as Graillik says - at some point, you realize that you can accomplish greater effects by not acting selfishly. You benefit more, often at a delay of reciprocation, but you usually receive greater reward by cooperation. it could be considered extended self-interest, but a lot of people don't think about the return effect when they do things for others outside of their own self-interest.