HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

DEFENDING ETHICAL EGOISM - THE DOCTRINE THAT YOU MUST LOOK AFTER OTHERS FOR IT MAKES YOU HAPPY

Altruism, the doctrine that the wellbeing and dignity of others matters and yours does not, only produces nasty hypocrites and is evil.  Egoism is better for it teaches you to care about yourself.  Giving of yourself is giving to yourself.

What is egoism?

Egoism is doing good for yourself and others for some selfish reason. Basically, it means doing good because you enjoy helping others.

Egotism is helping others just because you want praise or money or a good reputation or to feel important or to patronise. It is wrong and mercenary. 

Egoism is kinder and the best. We like people to help us because they enjoy doing so.

Is egoism true?

Philosophy says there are only two options being selfless or self-centred.

Others like to sub-divide that a bit.

One: selfless which is altruism.

Two: egoism which is selfishness that benefits you and automatically benefits those who encounter you.

Three: egotism selfishness that spills over into sociopath actions.

So basically, it is selflessness or selfishness. There are no in-betweens so it has to be one or the other. We have attained full certainty that altruism is wrong and fictitious and evil so either egoism or egotism which are both interpretations of the principle, Look out only for number one, is right. We have seen that the egotistic form of selfism is wrong and irrational so egoism must be true.

Animals are egoistic and very often they are egotistic. We evolved from animals and many of them behave like they have free will, the power to be altruistic or egoistic, though they do not so why should we have it? We couldn’t have it.

What is the proof from consciousness that egoism is true?

Egoism not altruism is natural and we are egoists by nature so we cannot become altruists any more that we can go back to being apes.

You only have one thought and one desire at a time and it causes you to act. You are not aware of anything else the moment you choose so you really don’t choose at all. Choice is an illusion. You do something because you want to and not because you see it as good or altruistic and that is selfish. Nobody denies we want things but some deny that we have choice. Animals have wants but don’t make choices. Self-sacrifice is masochism and hypocrisy. Some say that when you do good for others you are not thinking of your own pleasure ie. your desire to see others happy which is the same as wanting to fulfil the desire. But this not thinking has to be done to attain to the goal of the pleasure. It is part of getting the pleasure. You would not be doing the action except for the pleasure. It’s at the back of your mind, in your subconscious if you like, but its still there and it is motivating and driving you. Moreover, this subconscious driving force makes it pleasurable to go along with it even when the future pleasure is in your distant future. Every moment you will experience pleasure of some degree that is accompanied by a thought that determines what you will do the next moment. The argument is complete trash. It is true that we are egoistic creatures even when we do good for others. We do the good no matter what it is because we want to and not because it is good so we are egoists.

Altruism is impossible and unnatural for we only do what fulfils the strongest desire we are conscious of at any given moment. Moreover, it is the desire not what is desired that is important to us so if we desire to be holy it is the desire not the holiness that matters to us and which we cherish and like so we are really evil and satanic or unholy. We are all egoists. This insight came from Nietzsche. “Ultimately one loves one’s desires and not that which is desired” (Beyond Good and Evil, page 106, Maxim 175).

Some say that to desire the desire you have to desire the desire that makes you desire and have a desire for the desire that makes you desire the desire the desire and so on to infinity which is ridiculous. But this is wrong. The foundation desire is the desire for happiness. Happiness is not just pleasure it is sensible pleasure for we reject happiness often when it will mean less happiness in the future and happiness that we snatch knowing it is a mistake is not full happiness or contentment for it is accompanied by at least a little pain and worry. This basic desire manifests in different forms. All Nietzsche meant was that anything we want it is not it we want but the happiness we think we are going to get from it.

Ewing writes in Ethics, “To modern psychologists and philosophers it is plain that desire comes on the whole first and pleasure second and that the desire for pleasure as such plays only a small part in life. It is true that I could not desire something that was not in some way pleasant to me (though it might in other respects be very painful), but this does not prove that I only desire anything for the sake of the pleasure it will give” (page 26). If you find this confusing then be told that this is a contradiction nobody can expect you not to notice but it is one you are not allowed to say exists. If you do something because it pleases you then that is something selfish. Ewing cannot accept hedonism for he is biased towards the delusions about self-sacrifice that society is ridden with.

If you desire something that means you want the pleasure of the desire to be fulfilled. You can desire to leave a party early to help a depressed friend though it will diminish your pleasure. But though you are turning your back on fun, it does not follow that you are renouncing pleasure. It just means you are taking the pleasure of doing what you want and not the pleasure of hedonism. Even hedonistic pleasure ceases to be pleasure if you feel addicted to it. To do what you desire is the greatest and most important pleasure of all in the long run.

Good, neutral and bad selfishness

Ask not what others can do for you but what you can do for them.  That sounds good but it is a trick.

Many believe that self-centredness is never always bad. Sometimes it is good or for the best and other times it is neither good or bad ie neutral.

Many are those who say that you must look after yourself before you can help others and be well enough to help them. That is the basic idea behind the idea of good selfishness.  It seems to call such self-centredness good but does it? It actually only allows it for the benefit of others. You help yourself for them.  So it is confused and is not really an argument for good selfishness.

 There is more.  It suggests that looking after yourself is either neutral or a necessary evil. Now if it is really just a way of getting yourself to do good for others then it is self-manipulation. If you did not trick yourself you would not help so in reality despite your behaviour you do not really value them or care about them. It is manipulative to manipulate yourself to help them for that leads them to feel cared for when they are not. None of that is good and the good you do is only sort of good so it is not neutral morally to look after yourself or to help others. No it is a necessary evil.

What is the proof from conditional and unconditional love that egoism is true?

Conditional love is not love at all. Its like, “I love you if you keep making my tea in the morning”. It’s really the tea-making you care about and not the person.

Unconditional love denotes love that does not care what you do for it will still be there for you. It values the person and not their qualities. When a mother says she loves her son unconditionally she loves him because he was born from her body. She does not love him for being a person because there are loads of persons she does not love that way. Unconditional love is an impossibility. Everything we do is for something selfish’s sake.

Unconditional love is either for her sake or the son’s. Why can't it be both? If you love your son for your own sake then that is conditional love. So the love has to be for the other person's sake only.

To love is to value a person for being a person and for that person’s sake – if it is for your own then you are not loving that person unconditionally but loving yourself - and to value their happiness next. If persons should be happy then it follows that a person is an absolute value and is more important than happiness itself. The problem is we would rather our happiness was valued than us so this love cannot satisfy and is really useless. Useless or unwanted love is not love at all. Who wants to hear when they are in extremes of terminal agony that they cannot be put to sleep or even want to die because they are valuable?

All these considerations tell us that only conditional love is possible and therefore that we have no free will to choose between conditional love and unconditional love. Free will is no good to a God when it cannot make either of these possible.

Nobody values the person absolutely because if a person could live forever provided that person took on permanent and extreme mental and physical torture nobody would urge the one’s they love to go for it and put life first. This tells us that unconditional love is as much a delusion as the grace of God. The terrifying thing about it is that if God loves us unconditionally we are in trouble for he is boss and his love cannot warm our hearts but scare us to death. He has made us for suffering because we cannot love unconditionally though religion claims that free will was granted to us to be able to love that way. It is impossible to love another person unconditionally for their own sake for you are not as sure that they exist as you are that you exist so you must be doing it for your own sake. This may be the reason we are naturally produced as egoists for we can’t be anything else.

Do we love others unconditionally when we are firemen who save people knowing we will die doing so? The feeling of panic takes over so that we can forget about ourselves and what we lose by death so that we can die for them. In other words, we only give our lives for others when something happens to remove our rationality. Am I saying that it is not rational to give your life to save three people? It is rational to do that but our reason has to be silenced and warped by emotion and panic for us to do it. We have to be insane to do it. It is just like a person who wants to live and who forgets this through drink and risks their life. You surely don't consider such to be altruists?

What other proofs are there that there is no such thing as an altruist?

If we are so unselfish or capable of selflessness then why do we find it so hard to forgive even when what is done wrong is not the worst? We know we have faults ourselves that all add up to serious harm. We know that we have often willed terrible things to happen and would have carried them out if we had the power to do them psychically or just by willing. Why do we find it so hard to forgive somebody who has hurt and degraded themselves by doing wrong? That shows us how little compassion we have. Why are we so reluctant to take our punishment when we do wrong? We don’t mind as much when somebody else is punished.

Why are we so anxious to condemn people when there is no proof that we would be any better if we were in their shoes and in their precise situation?

We like to pretend to be good. Altruists pretend to be self-sacrificing and they have no right to expect us to believe them and their performances.

Why are we so keen to superciliously tell other people what to do? Even when we don’t, we would if we thought we could manipulate them while not making many sacrifices ourselves? An obvious example is the pope. It is okay for him to make trouble for people needing birth-control for he is celibate. The only preaching should be in action. It is also selfish for people who don’t do much for others praise others for doing what they wouldn’t do.

At funerals, you have to listen to the minister extolling the sacrifices made by the dead person. You know the minister is glad he never had to make them and he is approving of the pain that the dead person underwent while he wouldn’t take as much.

We know that it is bad for hurtful things to happen to other people but we never feel sorry for them unless we remember what it was like for us to have had similar experiences. It is not the person’s pain that causes my pain but my memory of my pain. In the short-term, I cannot help what I feel for the past causes it. If I feel depressed all the time as an adult because my mother beat me up as a child and I go to therapy and end up happier have I helped my feelings? It only looks as if I did. I could have been the kind of person therapy could do nothing for. It was the way I was made that cured me not the therapy. The way I was made needed that catalyst. When I feel sorry for another person I am merely only indirectly feeling sorry for myself. This being true, one wonders how religion can have the nerve to say that suffering has a good purpose.

There’s more. It is easy for religion to condone the calamities God sends when it doesn’t have much bother with him. If we are so good we would be strict but we are too worried about what other people think and not what is good for them. Those who demand sacrifice should make plenty themselves first. We are glad when somebody is tragically killed because it was them and not us. These things are at the back of our minds all the time though they are only shown when the conditions are conducive. They are still present and behind all our supposedly virtuous actions because they are present subconsciously. Any good we do it is only done because it suits us.

If we are so altruistic then why are we so changeable? Why are we such a peculiar mixture? A wife can hate her husband more than anybody else in the world and then stand up for him when somebody says something slighting about him though it is really nothing. She believes he deserves to be talked about so why does she stand up for him? One thing is for sure it is not for logic or because of reason so it must be for emotional gratification. If she were really altruistic she would be using her reason as she understands it and be behaving in a consistent way. Altruism hates reason but at the same time it would need it to exist. If we are so altruistic then why do we love people who are good to us no matter what harm they have done to other people? We are in effect saying, “I am glad it was them they hurt and not me. If it had been me I would not be their friend. I know that they would hurt me if I became the persons they have hurt. This relationship is false but I still love it.” This love of enemies as long as they belong to other people has no resemblance to altruism.

If we are capable of being altruistic likes and dislikes would not influence us so much. And these likes are arbitrary by natural law. For example, some Christians like people to be celibate and others do not and it is just the way they are. If we are so altruistic then why is it the end of the world when a love affair ends and why are we just not grateful to be alive so long and to be living where we are for we could be dead or living in a hell-hole in the Third World?

If we are so altruistic or able to be then why do we smuggle a prejudiced guess into nearly every judgment as if we know it all? If Jake hits Billy we will side with Billy even if Billy was always a worse bastard. We certainly cannot use reason to defend this but only prejudice if we believe in free will.

Selfishness is going to emerge and altruism is egotistical hypocrisy. The Humanist refuses to succumb to religious and altruistic propaganda and pretend that this problem of altruistic hypocrisy doesn’t exist for it has to be admitted and dealt with. Dealing with it ensures that the selfishness emerges not as egotism but as egoism and is properly balanced. The altruists and religionists have only their own agenda at heart as long as they turn their blind eyes to it and they can only succeed in increasing vice.
 
What is the proof from the limits of knowledge that altruism is a hoax?

You cannot be sure when you are helping a child that you are not helping a future mass murderer.
 
What is the proof from human motivation and our inability to control all the consequences of our actions that altruism is a hoax?

We can only hope or believe that the good we do actually does good. We could help a beggar man with money and he could use it to buy pain-killers to kill himself with. 

It will be answered that we did this because we intended to be good and that is what counts. But that is really an attitude of, "As long as I have a good motive I don't care if it works or not. My motive is really about me and not the other person." Another thing it says is, "Its the rule to have good motives. I can have a good motive just for the sake of the rule. I do it for the rule."
 
What is the proof from the arbitrary nature of society’s morals that altruism is a hoax?

Altruists have no reason for differentiating between a selfish person and an altruistic one when they see their actions. For example, the person who jumps into the ocean to save a child from drowning might want to die and is using the child’s plight to cover this up which is selfish or he might want to save the child or it might be both or he might have gone insane with emotion. Altruists approve of someone saying somebody is good because they did something nice for her or him even though that somebody is not good to you. They are not thinking of the victim then.

The altruist will agree with the Handbook of Christian Apologetics that happiness is not just a feeling of wellbeing but is the state of being well also – in other words, objective happiness the condition of being well and safe forever is what matters not subjective happiness which is just a feeling (page 141). This book says happiness is our choice so depressed and upset people then must be to blame for their unhappiness! What compassion Christians and altruists really have!

The book says happiness is a permanent state which evidently blames everybody for their problems such as bereavement and anger and so on. The altruist will like the idea of feeling nothing but being counted happy. Objective happiness is a sheer nonsense. Nobody is perfectly well. We can lose health and inner peace and our lives any time. It seems then that the only place one can have real objective happiness in is in Heaven. In Heaven there is just joy and love and nobody sins there. It follows then that you can’t be really happy until you are there! It follows that our earthly life is a burden and we should all be hoping to die in a plane crash or whatever. The idea that a person is well and happy while not feeling anything or while feeling no happiness is absurd. You are not well if you don’t feel happy. Our feelings and inability to feel happy all the time are at the root of our fears about the future. For example, we would not fear the flu so much if it didn’t take away our power to feel happy.

Altruism is really egotism in disguise – it is vicious and unnatural and deceitful.
 
Can you refute the examples that show that we do not just go after pleasure?

Yes.

They say knowledge is something we go after though it will not bring us a lot of pleasure.

But without knowledge you cannot be happy for the brighter you are the better you can think of a way to be happy and to cope.

They say that after you die you still want people to think well of you.

It gives you pleasure now to want people to miss you after you have gone. If you don’t want them to then you don’t think much of yourself now.

They say you want your children to have good successful lives.

Because you made them and worked for them and want the thrill of being considered a good parent and because nature forces you to have feelings for their welfare. You see children as extensions of your body and your personality so you love yourself in them.

They say a man can die horribly to save others.

The man does not want to die but to live. But he feels his life will be worthless with the burden of guilt if he does not die for them so he feels forced by this fear to give up his life. Another possibility is that we do nothing unless we feel like it and the man is taken over by raw emotion. It is the emotion that kills him not the goodness that is in him that wishes to save a life. If he didn't have the emotion that strongly he wouldn't bother.
 
Are you not mad for saying that nearly everybody is wrong for saying altruism is possible?

Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism all command people to check why they do the things they do. The thoughts and feelings associated with the act have to be identified and their role in the act has to be discerned. The devotees must start to admit the truth that altruism is deception.

Should we reject egoism if it has faults?

No because at least it is better than the approval of self-sacrifice which is the only alternative. We have to pick the best doctrine of good and evil. And it is the only candidate.

Are egoists widely hated and accused of threatening all that is good?

Yes and religion and altruists have done a lot to bring this about. It is themselves who are threatening good.
 
If egoism is true then does that mean we should do all the evil we like?

The true egoist will never harm anyone for people alone provide permanent pleasure and you only need to have as few needs as possible to be content and if you are happy you will automatically enjoy helping others so detach yourself. The true egoist is detached from transient things and is devoted to helping others. Experience proves that liking such a life is the supreme and immovable source of happiness.

Why does egoism tell me not to need God?

Because that is increasing fear by giving yourself a need you don’t really need.

If egoism is true then why can’t I treat some people and not all badly?

When you harm a person you automatically insult everybody else for you would do the same to each and every one of them if they filled the shoes of your victim. You are willing evil to them no matter how much you pretend that you are not. You are giving up the right to have friends and to have your word taken. Until you reinstate that right, true peace and the greatest happiness will not be possible. If you are a true egoist you will never hurt anyone without grave need. By your evil example you are telling people to degrade you.

How can an egoist preach egoism when that is making other people enter into competition against him?

That is only if egoism is about grabbing the best women or the best job or the most money. Egoism is not about these things but about sensible good works. A certain amount of competition is not a bad thing. Without competition or the threat of competition life would be less exciting. And winners wouldn’t be possible.

How can an egoist want to die to save others from death?

Some would argue: “There is proof for life after death. The egoist knows that it is better to take the risk of dying to save lives, even though he or she is more certain of his or her own existence, when she or he knows that death is not the end. It is simply murderous fanaticism to ask a person to die for others without that proof like the world does. Without the conviction that there is an afterlife, the egoist has to become mad to save lives. So the belief is necessary. But in what way has the egoist to become mad when he doesn't believe. He knows that fear of the guilt he will have to live with, will force him to look away from his desire to live. He blanks that desire out to die to save others. He has to become delusional to do it. He is not committing any sin against egoism for he is forced by his fear and the reality to forgo his life. The circumstances give him a kind of madness that is good for others and to their benefit.”

The Humanist answer is that belief in life after death is bad and there is no reason to hold that the afterlife is possible and that there are better grounds for egoists saving lives. If egoists see children drowning in stormy waters they should jump in and try to save then. The egoists are not doing wrong in this for they intend to survive. There would be no point in jumping in to save the child if they were sure they would drown themselves for that would mean the children would drown too. So when an egoist dies a martyr’s death it is an accident. Also, no egoist will save lives thinking of the afterlife. He goes mad with emotion and it takes over.

But what if an egoist has to save lives say in war and knows that he will die for it? He is satisfying his egoism by doing this because though he is egoistic he can still feel he wants to die for others. The fact that you have to put yourself first for you are most sure of your existence condemns this but there are other considerations that make a difference. Nobody could enjoy their closeness to their loved ones or their lives unless there are people prepared to die for them when there is no other way. The egoist gives his life for this principle because it is an egoistic one and he cannot be an egoist without it.

People should be more careful so the people who are in danger but have not caused the accident should come first. If a man drives into a lake through pure recklessness and you will probably die if you try and save him you should not save him. He had no right to force this risk on you. If this disturbs people they ought to remember that there will be far more to disturb if they adopt altruism.

Why do egoists talk about love when they do not believe in it?

Egoists simply do not mean the same thing by love as altruists do. By love the egoist means just willing and liking to see the best happen to others not non-emotional arid selfless love. Cold selfless love is the altruists unsatisfying ideal not ours.

Is egoism harmless?

It is indeed. It recognises that you can only love others to the extent that you can love yourself. Altruism tells you not to love yourself for you cannot love yourself when you pretend that you are non-existent in order to focus on doing so-called good for others the way it requires? Altruists are often really egoists which is good news for us for it means we can live up to the best in Altruism and avoid the dangers and the lies that are required to defend Altruism.

How can egoism be good when altruism makes one really happy?

To those who would deceive you into believing that there is no happiness unless you forget yourself and be selfless, say that if they are able to able to be happy while merely pretending to be unselfish for genuine Altruism is impossible, then what is called Altruism is no proof against egoism. The so-called Altruist does good because it feels right now and not directly for future happiness. This makes them happy. Why? For if you are too future-centred you can’t be happy for you long for what you don’t have yet and that is pain. They fulfil themselves in the present and that is the key. But people can do lots of things that will improve their future and the thought of how good it is going to be makes them happy. It will only do that if their work is not motivated by too much of a desire for a good future.

What about egoism and falling in love?

Though in the past the religions frowned upon falling in love, they turn a blind eye to it today for nobody would have anything to do with them if they still opposed it. Falling in love is a very selfish act. You do not fall in love with nice kindly caring people who would make you happy if they are old or ugly but people who are likable for you and who are sexually appealing to you. The sexual urge is behind falling in love. And you cannot control the feeling at all. For it to be love you would have to freely fall in love and it would be based not on a person suiting you but on a person being good and kind. Falling in love can be mistaken for selfless love but it is nothing like it. It is proof that apparent sacrifices for another does not prove you are unselfish.

Why will egoism do more good than Altruism?

Altruism orders you to do this and that or make this sacrifice and that which is sanctimonious because there is to be nothing in it for yourself. It just cares about rules and “goodness” not you. That is a complete turn-off.

With egoism, you are being encouraged not ordered to develop your own happiness and dignity by behaving in a good way and doing it to be happy and to spread happiness to others. We find anybody preaching at us a turn-off and will resent it if we have to obey and the reason is why our inclination towards self-indulgence is being denigrated and frustrated. Egoism is a better incentive to good behaviour than altruism for it is warm and sensible and realistic. And it is more than just better – it’s a hundred times better. It is more natural.

Commonsense says that if we are naturally self-centred as everybody who is honest agrees, then we should build on that to create people who are self-centred the right way instead of trying to foist altruism on them. The altruists cannot consistently reason that they should make the person who practices unstable or unbalanced irrational egoism which we call egotism turn to rational egoism.  If you are an egotist and extremely arrogant it is easier to come down to the egoist level and become decent than it is for you to come down to the altruist level. The step from egotism to altruism is so big that it is only going to encourage those people to do evil. And when people realise the step is impossible, it gets worse. Altruists may have to hold that egoism is worse than egotism for it looks good while virtue is to be identified only with altruism. It cannot encourage egoism at all.

If egotists change then why should they become altruists and turn their backs on happiness? Altruists will just have to say they should do it for happiness is a sin. The egotists will be less likely to feel and see that happiness is evil when they practice egoism so altruists have to either leave egotists as they are or they have to convert them to altruism. Egoism has to be left out of the equation. Altruism just cares about being selfless that is all and it cannot even tell us why we should not be selfless and kill ourselves for no reason for that is as much selflessness as the kind it demands. At least egoism can give a reason for being egoistic. Altruists cannot say we should sacrifice for the sake of indirect happiness for that would be adopting the egoism of working and doing good for the happiness. It says we should sacrifice just because we should sacrifice. Even God should not be obeyed if he requests altruism for he offers no proof that we should obey and this shows why obedience to God is and can only be slavery despite the promises of Christ that we would be the sons and daughters of God. If that kind of slavery is allowed so is the other kind.

Should the egoists be proud of their faults when they are the fault of nature?

It is thought that the egoists have to have strong self-esteem and have to like their own faults. That is incorrect for the egoists like their good side and see the dark side as the fault of the programming they received. They must wish to correct the dark side but they must not let it make them feel bad.

What about the argument that if egoism is true and we are all egoists then we don’t need to serve the interests of others for they will be happy enough?

They can’t make themselves happier or stay happy on their own.

What about the argument that the theory of psychological egoism destroys morality for it says that we do what we want and what ought to be done does not come into it?

This egoism says we are naturally egoists and can’t be anything else. It is true that it destroys morality but it does not destroy what is right and wrong. We know that even if there is no free will there are things that ought not to be done or happen. Psychological egoism can be triggered to make a person behave well. It is not good things like fancy food and houses that do this but things like kindness and friendliness. Good, real good, breeds good and leaves a legacy of love that will go on forever and contribute to the world forever. Its value is infinite both in what it can do and what it does do. Good is more powerful than evil and good will destroy religion and the work it has done to advance evil. But evil is just a perversion, a thing that is thought to be good but is not and is a kind of good in that sense, so it cannot survive.

What about the theory: “Egoism is bad news for it is nonsense to say that only my self-interest matters for others exist and morality is about how I should regard myself and others. Morality means that what applies to me applies to everybody else as well meaning that it is universalizable?"

So it is saying that I cannot encourage others to be egoistic because that means I am telling them to get the better of me if they can. I cannot say then that the whole universe should follow egoism.

The theory confuses the fact that egoism can be non-universalizable in the sense that I put me first but I can’t expect others to do that and that egoism is universalizable in the sense that I can put me first and others can put themselves first. That is why the theory is wrong.

Morality is based on what is supposed to be true and what can be believed. When I experience myself as the being I should put first how could it be morality to put others on the same level?

The theory assumes that I should not come first in my own life. I am not saying that I matter and that others do not. If I am, I would be denying the universalizability of morality which the theory seeks to avoid and which it condemns. I am saying that others matter as much as me if they exist but unfortunately I cannot help the fact that I have to put myself first so I cannot be condemned for not having others on the same level for I have no choice. Morality does not condemn the man who commits adultery because of uncontrollable psychological forces that have appeared suddenly. It is not relevant to him. Egoism is universalizable and practical because it says each person who experiences himself or herself as the one who must come first must do the same as I do and do it rationally and advocates as much simplicity in tastes and in life as possible.

What about the argument that since egoistic people have different needs and desires that we cannot have rules meaning that egoism is a recipe for anarchy?

The altruists have many different ideas about what altruism is. For example, Jesus said that if somebody steals your coat give him your cloak as well. Altruists in their inability to be consistent, would disagree. Clearly altruism is a greater threat to order than egoism could ever be.

Some egoists don’t mind being slandered. But some altruists are the same. But this does not mean that laws against slander should be revoked. The egoist can sue the slanderer though he or she was not upset by them because the slanderer is practising unbalanced or irrational egoism or egotism and the egoist finds joy in helping others. Thus the egoist can uphold the law better than the altruist.

What about moral neutrality and egoism?

Is it as good for the egoist to eat his pie as it is for him to give it to his mate and do without it? If it is not then egoism is incompatible with neutrality. It depends on whether or not the mate is a real mate so it would be worth doing without. The egoist only gives for pleasure or for future pleasure. We are afraid of being controlled by feelings which is why we often renounce great fun for something duller. Yet even then it is done for the pleasure of being and feeling in control. So it is not really duller after all. We are hedonists and nothing else in this sense.

What about the complaint that egoism says that rationality will always make us happy when it doesn’t?

Rationality could spoil your happiness for not all truths are pleasant. But it will only do that if YOU let it. We develop our responses to things. But egoism is about dignity and rationality and dignity are inseparable so you have to learn to make yourself happy through truth. If irrationality were allowed even if it was just for making you happy it would be right then to believe that you should abuse others if it makes you happy. This conclusion is unacceptable and undermines true egoism.

Should we love all persons without exception as ourselves?

It would be great if we could feel love for all but we cannot. We can still will good to them and that is love even if we dislike them. Feelings may make us bad judges of character at times but we are only in this world a while and it is better to have them. I should love myself most of all and love others as much as I am able and love myself in loving them. I should not love my neighbour as myself but if I practice egoism there will be no harm done anyway so do not worry about that. In fact I should love my neighbour through loving myself. Because I love myself I am good for others.

Should the law discourage altruism?

Yes for it is destructive to social order and illegally offers what it cannot give. Criminals who blame it for their behaviour are laughed at and that is unfair. Altruism with its hatred of feelings and emotional love leads to psychopathic disorders.

BOOKS CONSULTED

PSYCHOLOGY, George A Miller, Penguin, London, 1991
AWARENESS, Anthony de Mello, Fount, London, 1997
ETHICS, AC Ewing, English Universities Press Ltd, 102 Newgate Street, London, 1964
AN INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS, John Hospers, Routledge, London, 1992
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996
RUNAWAY WORLD, Michael Green, IVP, London, 1974
THE SATANIC BIBLE, Anton Szandor LaVey, Avon Books, New York, 1969
 
THE WWW

EGOISM, PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM (A DESCRIPTIVE CLAIM)
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~ghh/319/Lecture02.html