Egoism IS evil

Align

<div class="IPBDescription">Or evil is egoism. They are one and the same.</div>I'm grappling with the idea, but as so often when I come to think of something I have difficulties finding the flaws on my own. What I'm thinking is that
any evil act, is an act born out of egoism
and that any egoistic act is deplorable, frowned upon, bad (though noone would use the word "evil").

Or perhaps it's something self-evident?

lolfighter

Egoism may not mean the same thing to different people. I think starting out by laying down a definition would be a good idea. Preferably, Align should do that, since it's his definition of egoism he's equating with evil.

Align

Putting your own good before others.
Improving your own situation is fine, doing so at the cost of someone else's is egoistic.

Terr

I'm no fan of Ayn Rand by any means, but "egotism = evil" is <b>way</b> too simplistic. It's easy to prove by example.

Suppose there is a dictator of a small country who decides to exterminate everyone of a certain ethnic group within the country. For the sake of argument, all circumstances and contexts are such that we would all agree it is "evil".

Now, would we decide it was no-longer-evil if we found out that (A) the dictator was doing it because they insulted his moustache? The egotistical route? No.
Would we decide it was no-longer-evil if we found out (B) the dictator hates mustaches, but killed them all because they insulted the mustaches of other people? The communal reason? No.

Thus we have a case where an act may be evil regardless of whether there is egotistical motive.

Chris0132

I wouldn't say so, assuming egoism is 'acting in my own interest' then if I, for example, avoid killing people because I don't want to experience guilt, that is hardly deplorable because it means I don't kill people.

Putting your own good before everyone else does not neccesarily mean you cause harm to others, especially as for example you could suggest education reforms in order to improve the supply of educated labour and boost the economy thereby improving your standard of living in a stable and sustainable manner, a pure side effect of which is that everyone else happens to also improve their standard of living and become more educated.

Egoism vs everyone-else-ism doesn't really determine good or evil I think, the action itself determines good or evil, as well as the opinions of the observer.

lolfighter

That brings us to the question of whether egoism is the same as egocentrism - I'd say no. Egoism is when you act with no concern for anyone but yourself, whereas egocentrism is when you motivate your actions with regard to only yourself. Genuinely helping someone (rather than helping them now so you can set them up to shaft them later) can't be egoism, but it can be motivated by egocentrism (I want to feel good, helping a friend makes me feel good, therefore I help a friend).

Chris0132

<!--quoteo(post=1739136:date=Nov 24 2009, 01:55 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 24 2009, 01:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1739136"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That brings us to the question of whether egoism is the same as egocentrism - I'd say no. Egoism is when you act with no concern for anyone but yourself, whereas egocentrism is when you motivate your actions with regard to only yourself. Genuinely helping someone (rather than helping them now so you can set them up to shaft them later) can't be egoism, but it can be motivated by egocentrism (I want to feel good, helping a friend makes me feel good, therefore I help a friend).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Well if egoism is self motivated stupidity, as in you deliberately don't do anything that could possibly help anybody else even if it would help you more, then yes that would be OK, but I can't imagine anybody who would have such a philosophy.

lolfighter

Egoism is about looking out for yourself to the possible detriment of others, not the other way around. An archetypical egoist wouldn't waste a lot of his time for a 'thank you' and a handshake, but wouldn't mind helping for more tangible compensation. An archetypical egoist won't engage in altruism because they get no warm, fuzzy feeling out of it, whereas an egocentrist might.

Chris0132

But what about the examples I suggested? The idea of strengthening the national economy to provide a good foundation to build a business on and make lots of money for example, it has obvious global benefits but it also has solid tangible benefits for the person doing it.

Or for example the idea that being nice to people is simply helpful, if you're horrible to everyone you are likely to find it difficult to get any help from them if you need it, whereas if you're nice to them it's quite possible they will assist you if you require help. Those are hardly fuzzy feelings, they're sound logical reasons to help other people to provide security and other benefits for yourself.

lolfighter

Strengthening the national economy may well come at the price of weakening that of other countries. But hey, we have to look to our own interests before we can worry about others, right? Besides, they'd do the same to us.

Helping others can lead to you being exploited. What if a friend of yours moves once every six months, and you move every five years, if that? Do you still bother helping him? Do you start getting annoyed? Do you begin to consider "calling in sick" that saturday? And being horrible to others can carry its own rewards. Why do people grief in games? Because they get a certain sadistic glee out of it. Because their friends think it's funny when they do. "Remember that one time you made that guy rage so much that the admin banned him? Haha!"

Chris0132

Yes, all of those are possible interpretations.

Which is kind of my point, the intent makes it egoism or egocentrism or public spirited, not the action.

puzl

I think it's too simplistic as a binary decision. There is a difference between putting my own good above others, and depriving others for my own good.

For example, for many, it is okay to eat your own bread while your impoverished neighbour goes hungry, but many of these people would agree that it is not okay to deprive your impoverished neighbour of their own bread in order to feed yourself.

I think this kind of scenario can be extrapolated to the community, nation and world in order. I.e. many people think it is perfectly acceptable and not evil to invade another country to ensure the welfare of their nation.

I would say that egoism is necessary for evil, but does not necessarily imply it.

Align

<!--quoteo(post=1739685:date=Nov 24 2009, 04:37 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Nov 24 2009, 04:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1739685"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For example, for many, it is okay to eat your own bread while your impoverished neighbour goes hungry, but many of these people would agree that it is not okay to deprive your impoverished neighbour of their own bread in order to feed yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did say that improving your own situation is fine, just not at the cost of others. Though I'm not sure I agree that eating all your bread yourself when you know your neighbour starves is okay.

<!--quoteo(post=1739076:date=Nov 24 2009, 12:25 AM:name=Terr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Terr @ Nov 24 2009, 12:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1739076"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would we decide it was no-longer-evil if we found out (B) the dictator hates mustaches, but killed them all because they insulted the mustaches of other people? The communal reason? No.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's true. It's a bit like Lawful Stupid paladin players you might find in RPGs, harming others because they think they're doing them a favour. Myth busted I guess..
Although we're straying into the whole point-of-view morality thing. The dictator believes he's doing the right thing, but we disagree.

<!--quoteo(post=1739117:date=Nov 24 2009, 02:28 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Nov 24 2009, 02:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1739117"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Putting your own good before everyone else does not neccesarily mean you cause harm to others<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed, as I pointed out in my definition of egoism...

Stakhanov

If you consider things in purely logical terms , everyone is egoistic and thus everyone is evil. Why ? Defining egoism as putting your own good at the expense of others , spending your time doing anything but helping others (possibly along with yourself) is being an egoist. The opportunity cost of having fun on your own is that others people suffer because you did not actively help them out.

Which means it is impossible to reach moral perfection. Even if you dedicate your life helping others , there will be some choice where your pride , needs , or any kind of self interest will weight more than helping others for the sake of it.

I think it's better to think in terms of utility , where a good outcome for you has the same value as a good outcome for someone else. If it costs less time / efforts / money to help yourself than to help someone else , it is the most useful course of action. The point of altruistic methods is to reduce the overall amount of work required to help everyone.

Align

Well, there's no logical barrier to everyone having done at least one evil thing, however slight. Reasonably, this doesn't make every <i>person</i> evil; you merely have to do some good to balance out at normal.

korvo

Sometimes you have to do something for yourself to do something for others.

Sops

<!--quoteo(post=1739071:date=Nov 23 2009, 06:57 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Align @ Nov 23 2009, 06:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1739071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Putting your own good before others.
Improving your own situation is fine, doing so at the cost of someone else's is egoistic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well by your definition you could likely call most cases of egoistic behavior bad, maybe even evil. But egoism can be more generally defined as "morality ultimately rests on self-interest." I would argue that when you get down to it all human actions are made out of self interest, making every action made by every individual egoistic. So you would be defining all human action as evil.

You also have to define what, if anything, is <i>evil</i>.