70 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Wikipedia - Rational Egoism

Votes are great. Comments are greater.

[Live Forever]

Depends on the circumstances.

The largest percentage of the time for most people would be "yes", but there are exceptions.

[Ghostrider]

Prisoner's dilemma. No, I am more of a utilitarian.

[DJS]

Prisoner's dilemma.  No, I am more of a utilitarian.

The Prisoner's Dilemma is referenced in the wiki article and the counter to that challenge would be as it states:

Egoists debate whether or not this can be applied to the philosophy of rational egoism, due to the fact that if both prisoners were able to make their decision based on all the information, they would both decide to remain silent and serve six months.

BTW Ghostrider, in terms of ethics, I am also a utilitarian or, more broadly speaking, a consequentialist. However if you noticed I chose my wording carefully. Rather than asking if people were ethical egoists, I asked if they were rational egoists. This was an attempt on my part to avoid straying into normative considerations.

[struct]

Since I am rational (at least that's what I think) I automatically am egoist.

[John Schloendorn]

Due to not knowing what "I" am supposed to be over time, I am having a hard time being an egoist. Perhaps the wiki article should be updated with links to a few possible definitions of "self", as these seem necessary to make sense of the concept of egoism.

[Icie Jennifer]

I'm an Adaptive egoism. Nothing is clear-cut and just thinking about self-self-self is a great way to fall. (and some people will take pride in helping you fail!)
You need to think about yourself to survive, like signing up for cryonics, because if you don't your dead meat, (just the truth) but also it is necessary to help others as well like the Marcelon Johnson.

[william7]

Rational egoism leads to irrational egotism in too many cases. The ego needs to be under the full control of a strong Christian superego.

[lucid]

Rational egoism leads to irrational egotism in too many cases. The ego needs to be under the full control of a strong Christian superego.

Well I disagree. The trick with rational egoism, is that one must have a very good understanding of the effects of one's actions. Often secondary, or unintended, effects of ones actions can have a greater effect than the primary or intended effects. I find that if you try to screw people over (though it may seem in your best interest) the unintended effects will likely come back to screw you over. Additionally, I find that humans benefit from certain kinds of interactions. Helping others can be really fulfilling though it may not make you lots of money.

The real trick to rational egoism, is to have a good understanding of Your Values and consequences.

As far as a Christian superego goes... I think Christianity has many good values that usually are in ones best interest... working hard, being honest, loving your neighbor etc... The evidence for God just doesn't exist imo. So, just live a good life, you don't have to believe in a god to live a life with good values.

[JohnDoe1234]

Yeah, I consider myself a rational egoist; I am very prideful of my accomplishments as well as those of my fellow man.

Lucid, I liked what you said there, you must have a deep understanding of how your actions affect the world in order to be rational... and I guess... if you can't deal with that, then let god handle it for you... [:o]

[biologic]

The real trick to rational egoism, is to have a good understanding of Your Values and consequences.

As far as a Christian superego goes... I think Christianity has many good values that usually are in ones best interest... working hard, being honest, loving your neighbor etc... The evidence for God just doesn't exist imo. So, just live a good life, you don't have to believe in a god to live a life with good values.

Excellent -- I agree in every aspect.

I voted yes to being a rational egoist, as I feel that right now (when I'm relatively young) I should do 99% of things that in my best intrest such as aquiring money, aquiring education, and having a healthy body & mind. What I can do for people now is insignificant to what I can do for the public later.

[Brainbox]

Hmm, it can be an act of egoism to serve people. I do not mean as a waiter to earn money although most professional activities are comparable to that ...

I think Dutch society is different compared to the US. Some empathy is required to become successful. "Some" here in Holland might be a bit more than the "some" that is required in the US. Example: I drive a fast BMW that has a bad image according a lot of Dutch people, so I try to be as decent as possible in traffic to be able to enjoy it without having to deal with obscure movements of fellow drivers. I do not have any problem to abuse the German autobahn abroad to drive really fast for fun, turning the previous mentioned decency into controlled aggressiveness for a day. So yes, I guess I'm a rational (adaptive) egoist. [lol]

But as a philosophy n00b I have a feeling that I miss the point here, anyway.... I did not fill in the poll yet.... [g:)]

Edited by brainbox, 09 April 2007 - 10:41 PM.

[william7]

As far as a Christian superego goes... I think Christianity has many good values that usually are in ones best interest... working hard, being honest, loving your neighbor etc... The evidence for God just doesn't exist imo. So, just live a good life, you don't have to believe in a god to live a life with good values.

But, Christian values without the Christian God don't work very well. When you believe in a real God your practice of those values is much stronger. Then there's the assistance God through His Holy Spirit gives to those who love Him when they're experiencing serious difficulties.

[Brainbox]

Rational egoism leads to irrational egotism in too many cases. The ego needs to be under the full control of a strong Christian superego.

Forgive me, but isn't any strong religious superego the cornerstone for irrational super-egotism? Or is this possibly just an issue at "the other side"?

[william7]

Rational egoism leads to irrational egotism in too many cases. The ego needs to be under the full control of a strong Christian superego.

Forgive me, but isn't any strong religious superego the cornerstone for irrational super-egotism? Or is this possibly just an issue at "the other side"?

You might have an improper focus on those who have weak Christian superegos or those who claim to have strong ones but don't really have one at all. In other words, atheist wolves in sheep's clothing preying on the flock.

[JohnDoe1234]

atheist wolves in sheep's clothing preying on the flock.

Whoa there Nelly... that is completely unfounded, just because they don't behave according to what you prefer doesn't necessarily make them atheists... that just means that they are bad people. Atheists take pride in being open minded, kind, and moral... just as Christians claim...

[lucid]

Well you can't prove that God doesn't exist, therefore its not necessarily irrational to have a Christian super-ego. That said you can't prove that invisible purple flying mushroom spirits don't exist...

[DJS]

Due to not knowing what "I" am supposed to be over time, I am having a hard time being an egoist. Perhaps the wiki article should be updated with links to a few possible definitions of "self", as these seem necessary to make sense of the concept of egoism.

John, I agree that the wiki article is short on content. Providing minimal context for the question was intentional on my part. I was curious to see what types of interpretation this question would provoke.

In regards to the “self”, I believe that functionalism has made major headway in this area and I would recommend checking out Metzinger’s latest work. Here is a link to a video lecture by him if you are interested: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3658963188758918426Though it should be noted that definitions of the self are neutral when it comes to valuations of the self. This is why some functionalist philosophers of the mind caution against using charged phraseology like “the illusion of the self” because it implies a value judgement.

[DJS]

Some thoughts on this poll question…

Being a rational egoist requires a particular interpretation of rationality. In some case, such as my own, this doesn’t necessitate any objective assertions which exclude the possibility that other interpretations are equally valid, or at least worthy of respect. To do so would be to declare oneself the premier authority on rationality which, even by my standards, is rather pretentious. So, in a rather subtle way, the question has nothing to do with rationality and everything to do with individual value sets and the moralities that create them.

I would posit that, ultimately, values and morality are the product of the *Will*. However my conception of Will shouldn’t be confused with the fluffy metaphysical postulates of a St. Augustine, or even a Nietzsche for that matter. The historical development of “Will” as a concept, which is a predominately western phenomenon, is quite fascinating and has been dealt with extensively by the self-declared “sociologist” Hannah Arendt. Most of the specifics are incidental, but having an historical awareness of the concept does prove useful in dispelling some of the mysticism that surrounds it, thereby allowing one to incorporate it into a naturalistic framework. The co-opted version that I argue for views the Will as an aspect of baseline human behavioral characteristics, "cognitive subroutines" if you will, that are a direct consequence of two antipodal genetic evolutionary forces - group and organismal level selection.

On top of these subroutines are memetic algorithms that have evolved culturally over thousands of years. A given morality could be seen as a coherent system of memes (a “memecomplex”) that operates within the parameters established by the foundation it evolved upon. The variance in moral sentiments corresponds to the stochastic nature of evolutionary processes and the fluctuating dominance of one force over the other in the individual.

The modification of one’s personal morality, although uncommon in the general populace, is clearly a possibility. The large scale destruction and replacement of one morality with another is much less common, yet still within the realm of what is possible. Going further down the hierarchy however, it is difficult to see how the cognitive subroutines that form one’s basic disposition could be subject to alteration.*

(* Unless my conjectures are erroneous and there is a uniformed parity between the forces, and the divergence is produced by the functional relationship between the mind and its environment – thus, at least in principle, accessible to the higher tiers of cognition.)

I remember that in past discussions Lazarus Long was fond of making the contrast between Nietzsche’s *Will to Power* and his own *Will to Love*, which he described as an “affinity for life”. He also made the claim that the Will to Love was greater. I am uncertain whether he was making a value judgment or an assessment of the dynamics of power between the two. Either way, isn’t it possible that both Wills stand on equal footing in relative equilibrium with one another?

[eternaltraveler]

everyone's an egotist. Few are rational )

[DJS]

Well I disagree. The trick with rational egoism, is that one must have a very good understanding of the effects of one's actions. Often secondary, or unintended, effects of ones actions can have a greater effect than the primary or intended effects. I find that if you try to screw people over (though it may seem in your best interest) the unintended effects will likely come back to screw you over. Additionally, I find that humans benefit from certain kinds of interactions. Helping others can be really fulfilling though it may not make you lots of money.

The real trick to rational egoism, is to have a good understanding of Your Values and consequences.

I am in complete agreement with you. The formal label for this brand of morality is agent-focused Consequentialism.

Excerpts from the wiki article: Consequentialism

Consequentialism refers to those moral theories that hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, on a consequentialist account, a morally right action is an action which produces good consequences.
-----------------------------------------
Agent-focused or agent-neutral

A fundamental distinction along these lines is between theories that demand that agents act for ends in which they have some personal interest or motivation to pursue and theories that demand that agents act for ends perhaps disconnected from their own interests and drives. These are called "agent-focused" and "agent-neutral" theories respectively. Agent-neutral consequentialism ignores the specific value a state of affairs has for any particular agent. Thus, in an agent-neutral theory, my own personal goals do not count any more than anyone else's goals in evaluating what action I should take. Agent-focused consequentialism, on the other hand, focuses on the particular needs of the moral agent. Thus, in an agent-focused account, such as one that Peter Railton outlines, I might be concerned with the general welfare, but I am more concerned with the immediate welfare of myself and my friends and family[3]. These two approaches could be reconciled by acknowledging the tension between an agent's interests as an individual and as a member of various groups, and seeking to somehow optimize among all of these interests. For example, it may be meaningful to speak of an action as being good for someone as an individual but bad for them as a citizen of their town.

Having expressed my accord with your line of reasoning explicitly, I would now like to point out that framing the question in terms of inter-personal "codes of conduct" misses the point to a certain extent. This is not your fault (or that of the other thread participants). I intentionally gave the poll question only a minimum of context, which left the door wide open for misunderstandings. My original motivation for doing this was to allow a range of interpretations (which are useful to me). However I should have realized that people, when presented with the subject of egoism, naturally gravitate towards the more mundane aspects of morality. This is probably a consequence of the mundane being so prevalent, and thus such a familiar stomping ground. (I'm running the risk of coming off as snobbish right now )

As I stated to Ghostrider earlier, I chose my wording for the question carefully. A "personal philosophy" can be seen as all encompassing, so codes of conduct are relevant (if only marginally) but the real issue is on how one focuses the intellect. Naturally, for even the most serious minds there is "off time" when cognition is serving no utility other than possibly maintaining psychological well being (like watching Family Guy). Determining utility is also extremely subjective. Nevertheless, during "on time", when one is exploring the vastness of all that is possible with finite resources, some type of prioritization must take place.

Being a rational egoist dictates that there is a general preference for how areas of inquiry are prioritized. There are obvious and less obvious examples of what I am refering to. Reading a book on evolutionary psychology would take priority over watching an hour of talking heads politics on television (or really any politics whatsoever). Mastering bayesian reasoning would take priority over pop ritualizing technological trends. Online forum interaction - which entails the exchange of perspectives as well as an ample amount of intellectual stimulation from the creative process, versus online reference resources - which are optimal sources of unadulterated information, but lack many of the fringe benefits that mind-to-mind interaction provide. Functioning as an activist versus functioning as an intellectual - how much time does one dedicate to each? And the list goes on.

Hopefully I have now provided a clearer understanding of what I had in mind with this poll question.

[lucid]

Well, I am more confused now than I certainly had been.

Being a rational egoist dictates that there is a general preference for how areas of inquiry are prioritized.

It seems to me that these preferences are for the most part completely subjective.

Reading a book on evolutionary psychology would take priority over watching an hour of talking heads politics on television (or really any politics whatsoever).

I would agree that talking heads on CNN suck, but I also think that enjoying watching CNN doesn't preclude one from being a rational egoist. Perhaps you could explain how choice of areas of inquiry relates to the pursuit of one's own, accurately perceived, self-interest? Perhaps deciding on one's area of inquiry will determine how accurate one's perception of self interest is... At any rate, the answer to the question of choice of fields of interest is complicated, perhaps I will outline my guideline in the near future.

[william7]

Whoa there Nelly... that is completely unfounded, just because they don't behave according to what you prefer doesn't necessarily make them atheists... that just means that they are bad people. Atheists take pride in being open minded, kind, and moral... just as Christians claim

I realize you haven't yet had much opportunity to study people, the world we live in, or religion. You can't possibly know who all is an atheist and who all are religious. People can be very deceptive and many don't openly express their true feelings on matters of religion, politics, etc.

You more than likely misunderstood what I meant by "atheists in sheep's clothing." Atheists in sheep's clothing are those who take on the cloak of Christianity, but practice diametrically opposite of what the Bible says and at the same time exploit and oppress others. They have no fear of punishment from God because they don't really believe in His existence. Therefore they are atheists.

When I responded to brainbox, I was assuming his attention was focused on the religious right wingers in the United States and elsewhere who practice power, wealth, and corrupt politics. These people are not sincere about what they preach and have no fear of punishment from God because they don't believe He exists. If they really believed, they most definitely wouldn't be doing what they're doing.

The atheists you are referring to, I believe, are those who are openly atheist and have shown themselves to you to be open minded, kind, and moral. Am I correct?

[Infernity]

I am. I am the one to tell you all, we all are egoists. I know I am one for I am a human being, and rational autonomic organism that does it all to survive. Does it make me and egoistic person, hell nay, it merely comforts me to know it in times I truthfully find it better to help myself rather than someone else, eventhough I don't even tend to do this.
Vote: Yes.

-Inf.

[DJS]

Disclaimer – this is a long winded post

lucid: I would agree that talking heads on CNN suck, but I also think that enjoying watching CNN doesn't preclude one from being a rational egoist. Perhaps you could explain how choice of areas of inquiry relates to the pursuit of one's own, accurately perceived, self-interest? Perhaps deciding on one's area of inquiry will determine how accurate one's perception of self interest is...

Sure, I’ll have another go at explaining myself. Let’s start with the example of me creating this poll question.

My objectives (goals) in taking this action are (1) to provoke interpretations that I can then analyze (2) to assess if it is possible to communicate my perspective and if so, the level of difficulty in doing so and (3) to refine my own thoughts through the communicative process. My motivation for these goals is to gain a better understanding of human psychology because in doing so it sheds light on my own psychology.

What my action most assuredly is not, is indicative of a desire to spread my memetics or convert others to my perspective. If a perspective is somehow affected through its interaction with my perspective then I have no qualms with that (even though this might actually be a small net negative outcome), but it is certainly not something I consciously aim for.

The question that I can imagine popping into many people’s heads at this point is “How can you view spreading your own perspective as a net negative?” Well, just because I am fairly selfish in how I allot my cognitive resources this doesn’t imply that I am oblivious to the fact that individuals whose focus is highly altruistic are beneficial to society as a whole (myself included).

This response demonstrates my rejection of Kant’s Categorical Imperative (which would, btw, effectively eliminate the distinction between ethics and morality) and any notion of a “universal morality”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_Imperative

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. - Immanuel Kant, Metaphysics of Morals

As a rational egoist, I do not feel obligated to restrict myself based on what I perceive to be the best interests of society. This is because I consider it rational to view my moral sentiments and the actions they produce as having (the overwhelming majority of the time) a negligible influence on the world I operate within.

Some internet acquaintances have reacted to this perspective by claiming that it is “hypocritical”. Besides from the fact that - other than people I care about or who directly impact my life - I couldn’t care less what others think of me, I would point out that this is clearly not true. As is evidenced by my frank discussion here on this thread, I tend to be upfront about my perspective. More commonly, my interaction with other individuals doesn’t touch on these “deeper” issues so there is no moral advocacy one way or the other. Yet this isn’t to say that I am above being hypocritical if, based on my assessment of the consequences, I believe such a policy is in my self interest. After all, hypocrisy can be a concrete fact, but whether it is viewed as good or bad is a moral judgment.

Okay, now to address your question more directly…

I think for starters we can agree that one’s perceived self interest is derivative of values and the goals that accompany them, yes? With that much assumed I’ll also make certain exemptions to facilitate a concentrated discussion.

Regardless of my aberrant psychology, I am still a human being who possesses an assortment of “needs” and strong “wants”. Food, shelter, clothing, health care - and a source of income for the aforementioned - are basic requirements of my existence. And then there are less urgent demands such as companionship and leisure time which sustain my general psychological well being. All of the above are lower order goals that must constantly be met while I am striving towards my higher order goals. Naturally this is a matter of common sense and undeserving of further discussion, but I figured I’d mention it for the sake of being thorough.

I would also exclude the issue of my primary goal, achieving ultra-intelligence (post-human cognitive capabilities), because it only complicates things by introducing the tough choice between (a) dedicating resources (ie, time) to positioning myself for technological progress by acquiring capital and (b) optimizing my cognition with its current restrictions based on the understanding that there is the contingent risk of my primary goal being unattainable, for whatever reason.

Moving on to my perceived self interest as a philosopher, my goal is to be uber-rational. This requires that I optimize my cognition by enhancing my understanding of logical and mathematical language, identifying and selectively eliminating bias, adopting novel heuristic methods, etc etc.

“Yes, but why do you desire to be uber-rational?”

This is probably the most frequent question/challenge made to my proposed objective. I sometimes even encounter it with those adhering staunchly to a scientific worldview.

Ultimately there is no justification for anything other than that our nature compels us. However I do think there is a way for me to convey my motivations to an audience which values rationality (ie, the ImmInst community).

I am sure that, when evaluating the (distinctly religious) perspective of a forum presence such as an elijah3, most rationalists can’t help forming the opinion that there is a great deal of cognitive dissonance present. Individual reactions range from scorn to pity. But really, if happiness and contentment result from this perspective, then what’s wrong with it? Why do you desire to not be delusional?

“Because when you’re delusional you increase your risk of making mistakes, which decreases the utility of your volition.”

In the case of schizophrenia, where delusional states correspond to an individual’s immediate surroundings and negatively affect hir ability to function in society, this argument would be valid. Yet with religiosity the same logic does not apply because the delusions it produces are of a more abstract nature that rarely have a negative impact on the believer’s ability to function in day to day life.

Putting aside objections that antiquated religious thought distorts ethical discourse and thus negatively impacts “progress”, what we are left with is a visceral repulsion that can not itself be justified by logic. This same repulsive force fuels my desire to be uber-rational.

A common misconception of rationality is that it is an “all or nothing”, “black and white” affair - you are either rational or you are irrational. The truth is that rationality comes in gradations and perfect rationality is an imaginary ideal.

In most religions, the concept of *faith* is exalted and used to hold together the muddled edifices. Logically (pardon the pun) most rationalists reject this concept, but the corruptive influence of faith is still present in all of us. Having faith in beliefs is just the surface level. Most of the concepts we use to construct meaning rest on faith and even the logical consistency of our critical analyses is typically a matter of faith.

Rationality is all about eliminating unquestioned assumptions (faith). And, as one of my higher order goals, I place a premium on areas of inquiry which aid in the process. This doesn’t mean that I completely avoid all things which are unrelated (like watching CNN). Having a balanced perspective is definitely valuable and supplying the intellect with raw content often triggers unexpected moments of insight. (and I should at least mention that I still have a sizable amount of tangentially related content in my mind like bioethics and geo-strategic theory from when I possessed a very different intellectual focus) My main point however is that I am fully aware that this type of focus usually has limited utility and amounts to nothing more than intellectual masturbation. It is alright to occasionally indulge oneself, but to mistake leisure activities for serious intellectual pursuits is to turn oneself into what one of my colleagues coined "a trivial information gathering automaton”.

[william7]

Disclaimer – this is a long winded post

[DJS]

BTW, my last post is directly attributable to waking up after four hours of sleep and realizing that melatonin isn't worth sqwat. [tung]

[william7]

BTW, my last post is directly attributable to waking up after four hours of sleep and realizing that melatonin isn't worth sqwat.  [tung]

You weren't by any chance on another one of those long philosophical and soul searching episodes with the vodka bottle you mentioned in a previous post were you?

[Athanasios]

But really, if happiness and contentment result from this perspective, then what’s wrong with it? Why do you desire to not be delusional?

It will be fleeting. The difference between what is and what you think is will create conflict and strife that would not have been there otherwise. You will also be less able to adapt and learn from your environment due to filtering content through a false perspective. This will create more and more conflict as time goes on, and whatever contentment you once had will be crippled. You can postpone the realization by seclusion, but in the end, castles made of sand...

A common misconception of rationality is that it is an “all or nothing”, “black and white” affair - you are either rational or you are irrational. The truth is that rationality comes in gradations and perfect rationality is an imaginary ideal.

Definitely.

We only 'know' one thing in relationship with another thing, which makes a mighty big gray area. I think you will be more rational the more you learn your relationship to everything else, and everything else' relationship with everything else and...

[william7]

It will be fleeting. The difference between what is and what you think is will create conflict and strife that would not have been there otherwise. You will also be less able to adapt and learn from your environment due to filtering content through a false perspective. This will create more and more conflict as time goes on, and whatever contentment you once had will be crippled. You can postpone the realization by seclusion, but in the end, castles made of sand...

Even though my dominant perspective on life is the Bible, I utilize a number of perspectives when I filter content as you say. I believe this makes me more versatile and increases my ability to adapt. Is a person limited to just one perspective in life?