Talk:Ethical egoism

Unethical egoism and unethical altruism
What about unethical egoism and unethical altruism? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Special Frog
Last edits on my part were a misclick.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ethical egoism and rational egoism
Apparently we only get ethical egoism and rational egoism here. No just plain egoism or any other types. RW denizens seem to have an appropriate hate-on for objectivists and libertarians but spend too much effort trying to claim that egoism is an 'ought' philosophy that informs the 'Randroids', rather than an 'is' philosophy that kind of clears the slate and lets you go to 'ought' philosophies like utilitarianism or objectivism if you want to (not recommended). It seems to me that blaming egoism for the existence of objectivists is like blaming Jesus for the alt-right. If the concepts in life that really matter are too difficult for the lowest common denominator to grasp, well what do you expect? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 154.5.212.157 / talk


 * There used to be a big Egoism write-up here, based on Max Stirner who I believe also had a write up. They were highly pejorative and fairly ignorant so I guess eventually someone took them away. They said that Egoism is a way to use philosophy as an excuse to be selfish, then went on about how lame it is to be selfish. Stirner's Egoism actually says that the only person who has any chance of knowing what's good for you, and what you should do, is you. And even then you might be wrong because you're under the control of the 'wheels in your head'. And at the very end it tells you to throw the book away so you aren't compelled to use it to form dogma according to rules you think are in it. I'm sure no objectivist has ever thrown away an Ayn Rand book! It has nothing to do with Objectivism and Ayn Rand, nothing to do with the alt-right, they can't understand it anyway, It doesn't even have anything to do with anarchy even though it is often said to be. And you're right, it's an is not an ought. I think very few people are able to comprehend that, or maybe it's that few Stirner critics have actually read his book. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 154.5.212.157 / talk

Article needs improvements
This article could use a lot of improvements, it's rather shallow and unnuanced, and filled with misrepresentations of egoist theories. There are egoistic justifications for, say, fighting crime because it's in everyone's self interest to do so for example. So if someone would take a look at this and help improve it that'd be great. — Oxyaena Harass  16:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Understanding Moral/Ethical Egoism
I wrote this for Quora on a question asking what Moral/Ethical Egoism is. I think it may help people understand egoism better:

Moral or Ethical egoism is a very dangerous concept because it suggests that egoism can be moral, which it can't (and that's a good thing!). Moral egoism allows an egoist to justify abusing other people. It is the 'might makes right' interpretation of egoism that sadly most people are unable to see past. I consider myself to be an egoist as I've studied Stirner forwards, backwards and up the wazoo. But Stirner never says egoism can be moral or ethical, though he stresses that an egoist can be moral or ethical, just not because of egoism. Stirner doesn't say there is anything wrong with morality or ethics, as long as the egoist controls his morality or ethics, rather than morality or ethics controlling the egoist. His main point in all this is that people should behave according to their own interests, rather than according to a set of rules. If it is in their best interest to follow those rules, that's fine, as long as the rules are not in control, the person is acting like an egoist. But a 'moral/ethical egoist' is obviously putting rules ahead of egoism, and that's a no no. The egoist is not supposed to direct his egoism with a moral compass, as that is literally antithetical to egoism. By not allowing the egoist to couch his behavior in so-called morality, egoism demands that the egoist face the consequences of his behavior. If he feels shame for something he did, then he should feel that shame, he should have no Supreme Directive that allows him to absolve himself of the consequences of his behavior. Stirner knew that behavior that abuses people is always justified as morally right by the abuser. Egoism removes that get-out-of-consequences-free card, so that the egoist has no choice but to present his motives honestly. Note to non-philosophers: Do not confuse the word ‘egoist’ with the word ‘egotist’. If you think egoism is necessarily bad, you’re probably thinking of egotism, aka selfishness.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 108.180.92.37 / talk 12:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)