I think that I'm looking for Murray Rothbard. Has anyone read Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature or know of any good rebuttals to it? Has anyone read Rothbard? Is there a reason to also The Ethics of Liberty or will I get enough of the gist of his theory with Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature?

I'm just going to go for the one book. How much time does anyone really need to spend on this?

I tend to be of the opinion that Ethical Egoism results in an aporia of human relations where trust is rendered as an impossibility. — thewonder

Which means that it is not in our self-interest to just take our own needs into account. Further, most of us are social mammals with empathy. So to varying degrees and varying due to situation, we don't like to see others suffer, we like companionship, we love some people, there is a lot of win win stuff, so someone taking their own needs into account must necessarily takes the needs and life quality of others into account. Only damaged social mammals would not.

So if the ethical egoist things that being selfish means not taking into accout the needs of others, they are damaged or dumb or both.

Though really my argument is not an arguement against ethical egoism, as long as the person realizes what being human entails and is not too damaged.

It would be an improvished life, which some do live, if they only care about themselves. A not fully human life. It is not in anyone's self-interest to lead that life.

To my understanding, human beings have been proven to be somewhat naturally alturistic. Humans, at the very least, have the capacity for alturism. To me, there seems to be no reason to neglect a basic facet of the human condition whilst deciding upon how to act.

i am thinking at the moment that ethical egoism is the current state of affairs. Even if we don't realize it our social behavior has been shaped by many years of trial and error. It seems that we use others and are used by others in a systematic way that "lifts all boats" so to speak.

Can such circumstances be altered?

Yes, I think so, Please forgive my slowness to respond, my typing skills are minimal. I am not sure to what circumstances you are referring. As social creatures, any anti-social behavior is inherently detrimental to the system. Paradoxically, it seems that some of the rebels have actually contributed the most, but i guess that only goes to show that the system wasn't correct.?

I guess it is as dynamic and ever changing as we are. I don't know about you but i am a different person after every book i read or experience i have.

I would concur, but, I'm an Anarcho-Pacifist, so, take that how you will. I was asking if you just saw that as the current state of affairs or the state of affairs in general. You don't seem to think that it is the case that Ethical Egoism just simply describes how things are. I don't think that it is either, but, do wonder about such things. I honestly haven't parcelled out an Ethics to offer as an alternative.

Anarcho-Pacifist, I am unfamiliar, just googled, was surprised by the influences of Tolstoy and Gandhi. Not convinced of its efficaciousness though. Wouldn't having a sword in a sword fight be beneficial? It seems like you as an anarcho-pacifist are depending on the instincts of others to accomplish your ideal. I am new to this whole thinking about thinking thing so please forgive my errors.

Well, thanks for your conversation "thewonderr" I have to go (domestic duties). maybe next weekend.

Sure thing, Franklin.

I started off reading Tolstoy, and, later after coming through most of the Left came back around to Anarcho-Pacifism. Richard B. Gregg has a good chapter on the effectiveness of nonviolence in The Power of Nonviolence titled "Moral Jiu-Jitsu". He states most of the advantages of nonviolence there. I don't know how right he is, but, I think that he was on to something.

I'll see you later.

Which means that it is not in our self-interest to just take our own needs into account. Further, most of us are social mammals with empathy. So to varying degrees and varying due to situation, we don't like to see others suffer, we like companionship, we love some people, there is a lot of win win stuff, so someone taking their own needs into account must necessarily takes the needs and life quality of others into account. Only damaged social mammals would not. — Coben

Yes.

To my understanding, human beings have been proven to be somewhat naturally alturistic. Humans, at the very least, have the capacity for alturism. To me, there seems to be no reason to neglect a basic facet of the human condition whilst deciding upon how to act. — thewonder

Right. I agree with that. But the point I am also making is that an ethical egoism who is not altruistic is also not egotistical. He or she is not taking care of him/herself in the full social mammalian way. So, actually there is nothing wrong with ethical egoism as long as the ethical egoism is aware of their full nature and needs. Ethical egoism then becomes a different heuristic, rather than a different set of social behaviors.

How do I figure out how to behave with other and what attitudes to have? Via what satifies my needs and desires. This might be an easier heuristic for some. Now that they are viewing it that way, they need to look at the full range of their needs nad wants which will include intimacy, being respected and liked and loved, being able to be welcomed in group activities, not experiencing hurting others unless it is absolutely necessary and so on.

It is how they come to their conclusions, not the conclusions.

Now I assume that ethical egoists probably don't reallize their full humanity, as I would view it. But in actual fact, I think, their isn't a problem as long as they check their full selves out.

An advantage is it minimizes guilt this way.

If you have a set of rules about being good to people, for itself, perhaps, say, the way Christianity has done this - the Good will seem like a not win win thing. It will seem like you should do these things because they are good, even if you would enjoy life more if you were not a good neighbor, friend, husband whatever. And guilt is a major part of most deontological and even consequentialist systems.

The ethical egoism, should they look at the full range of their needs will more fully understand that this being good to others is not (just) for others, but is good for them. They make the choice selffishly and need not feel like they are giving something up.

I am thinking, sorry i don't get much time to research, Too much work. One quick question though, do you think Gandhi would have had as much of an influence without the multitude of disenfranchised Indians?

Ethical egoism when applied to the individual in my eyes is not ethical.

Ethical egoism applied to a collective, now that to me sounds like a much better state of affairs.

Ethical egoism as a collective unified human ego seems much more appropriate as it inherently requires you to think of the needs, rights and abilities of those individuals who make up the collective. A collective that focuses on increasing its ability to meet its universal needs (food, housing, education, and healthcare) will do far better than a collective that is focused on helping a subjective elite achieve their individual goals, wants and desires. With the false hopes that the needs of the collective will trickle down from the top from the people when they meet their wants, its easy to identify who from the collective has an individual ego mindset and who has a collective mindset.

First comment since joining. Hope this comment is acceptable.

all people become ethical egoists at particular points in there life the moment they draw a conclusion that a certain ethical practice is acceptable or unacceptable.

Boy, i seem to have gotten behind. These last few comments are to the point really. I suppose that Egoism that is Ethical would be the same as any self interest that is in one self's (and by extension one's communities) interest, but does one have to be aware of it then, or can it just be a belief or intention that one has that he or she only thinks is in their interest. I am not sure if we should't separate the objective reality that ultimately self interest is based in our social ideal with the individuals belief. Although it brings to mind the example of a soldier obeying orders that gets him killed. Are those collective interests helping him then?

I enjoyed your comment. As new member myself i welcome your posts and felt yours was well said and i agree in that a collective that Ethically Egoist would be a much better state of affairs. However, i am not sure that has much chance with our as humans strong individuality and general stupidity. Hope to hear from you again.

Hey, i was able to read a little of Richard B Gregg article on The Power of Nonviolence and my immediate impression was that their prohibition on violence coincided with their inability to effect change with it. I mean, the few examples i read were examples of peoples who were the weakest and really couldn't do more than the walkouts or refusals and whatnot. My question is; wouldn't doing all those things and also being willing to violently defend or even attack been more effective? I seem to think that compared to the history of violence involved revolts the examples of truly effective non-violent ones are few.

I downloaded that article you mentioned and am giving it a bit more attention. The Moral jiu-jitsu is interesting. I hope to have an opinion on it in a few days. Till then

Thank you for your comment. You made an excellent point about human individuality and stupidity.

Do you think it would be accurate to say that there is an observable individual ego, national ego and a unified collective ego of humanity?

So for example, the individual ego: Look at the amazing things I’VE done!
National ego: Look at the amazing things OUR COUNTRY has done!
Unified Ego: Look at the amazing things OUR SPECIES has done.

If we accept the existence of a dialogical self, then is the agent of the individual ego the same agent as the collective egos of national and unified? I’d say not, for a human can love themselves but be resentful, indifferent or hateful of their country.

To moderators: Once these questions are answered we will get back to the topic at hand. I believe these points to be relevant but defer to yourselves.

Well, I think it is all the same aspect on our evolutionarily adapted instincts. Some more than others. As in the expression of beneficial traits may be expressed more strongly in some lines but not yet in other lines due to other supports of propagation. However, wouldn't a best case scenario be an individual who recognizes each for itself. Let me rethink here>>> I am not sure that a single person couldn't have all three of those egos at different times, even if they were to logically conflict. Think of the partisan supporter at a rally of the winning candidate extolling the supposed virtues of the country yet denouncing that same country the next october.

Perhaps it is a matter of need and perceived threat only. I am sorry to say that i have a rather pessimistic view on humanity in general.

Sorry to drag along in my thoughts. As far as a unified species ego, I think that might be hard to define. I mean, we have had the cinematic scenarios that depict us as a species rising up against the existential threat from the Others, but i can't think of anything real where that has come into play despite the many things that i think should be addressed as a species. I can see the idea passed along in grade school that you might be referring to, (look how far we have come, from rocks to space and all that.) I guess we as humans have learned to want to belong to some group. And the importance of thats groups exclusivity is a whole other subject.

Sir, I see that we are on different levels here. I am fascinated by some of your terminology, specifically the "dialogical self," I feel i must do some research before i can offer anything of value. Please excuse me while i upload. Thank You

Well, thank you for that journey into psychology. As your question, "If we accept the existence of a dialogical self, then is the agent of the individual ego the same agent as the collective egos of national and unified? " Well, I would say yes, not only is there the question of what other agent would it or could it be, but to "if we accept the existence of the diological self," from what i was able to quickly glean from Wikipedia the dialogical self included extensions of ones self ((extension=modes,) am I equating that right?) capable of holding a multiplicity of viewpoints. Do you think i am reading this right. All in all, I still think that yes a human can hold multiple, and even logically contradictory viewpoints at the same time.

No problem what so ever. It's refreshing that you're researching. I'll message you some more material on Philosophy of Mind. Suffice it to say, that at one point psychology was once a branch of philosophy before it started to stand out as it's own field. Most decent philosophical writing on Philosophy of mind comes with an understanding of psychology.

I'd say that Wikipedia has some confusing language on this subject so while you are understanding it, do some more research on it to get the correct terminology, I'll message you more on this too.

Now, back to how this relates to ethical egoism as I don't want to veer anymore from OPs question here.
I know we are getting into the risky realms of prescriptive analytical philosophy. Which means I'm probably imagining an ideal world where everything goes right in order to believe this is conceivable. There is a probability(albeit low) that if education were structured in a certain way and really was equally accessible to all, we could theoretically shift focus onto the collective ego by recognising that a collective ego does acknowledge the individual. If I acknowledge that I have a duty toward the collective I am a part of (humanity), I can be aware of what that truly means. So that means I am here for everyone, however I am a part of everyone and must include myself in that group. I must also recognise that as a human I am capable of being a driving or contributing force toward the ideal goals of the collective, because humans are capable of doing this. Which means any self advancement must be in service of this, no more making millions as the goal itself, you make millions to effectively and ethically redistribute in a way that contributes towards meeting the needs of the collective. I must also recognise that I am not the only contribution to my own advancement as I will have advanced because of aid from within the collective. Family, friends, government, school, employer, church, god etc.

This shouldn't be confused with putting humanity at the center of everything either, but that's for a different discussion. I can tell you the ultimate form of ethical egoism, but it's extremely unlikely to ever happen.

Oh, as a little side fun fact, the change where psychology became it's own field is so relatively recent that the Boston Public Library hasn't sorted their collection to reflect this. One second you'll be on the philosophy aisle, you go into the next one and there is the logic section, then two whole shelves of psychology, going onto self help, and then ethics. I kind of like it this way though, feels like a joke about the emotional nature of ethics and how it can sometimes be so far removed from logic hahaha!

I think i must disagree with a lot of the previous statement. It seems like you are describing an ant colony. Currently, we seem to tolerate the rebels and defective. How would they fit into the collective ego? I seem to remember the rebels as being one of the greatest influences of our history. I am concerned that your idea of "if education were structured in a certain way and really was equally accessible to all, we could theoretically shift focus onto the collective ego by recognizing that a collective ego does acknowledge the individual." tends to fascism.