@sheepblitzer I think its argument is that if you give money, the underlying motive is to "feel good", to gain a stronger friendship with a person or to appear altruistic super-ficially to others, etc. Your final point is about the end result of an action; egoism is about motives not result, I believe.
so your saying that giving money to a friend, or to charity, or working hard for someone else--things that at a first glance we'd consider altruistic--are actually egoistic?
also, things like becoming educated, producing, creating, etc, that we'd assume are beneficial to oneself (egoist) can actually help others, and are therefore altruistic....
Is there a difference between egoism and egomania, and if not, why did they come up with two different words for something that basically is the same!?
So basically you are saying that an 'egomane' is an egoist that don't play the game well!? A person that don't understand when he has to give and take to, when all comes to all, get most out of the situation. Sounds reasonable.
I would like to underline this with a far more drastic complaint, I have heard while talking about egoism: "Do you think a women loves her child for herself?" I agree that the "Motherly-love" is the under the strongest, but have to also ask a question back: "Wouldn't you knock a mother that hates her baby out of your society?"
Think about that.
(Sorry about the bad English, I am a 17 year old german)
Like you said positive actions have a positive effect on ones self in the long run, I totally agree, but the effect in the long run IS that we can continue to take part in our society, and therefore receive the safety it gives us. I would like to add that this has nothing to do with everybody being the same, like robots. It is just the mere nature of human kind, to seek safety, and a prolonging of life. cont.
I would like to disagree to your answer to the final complaint, I think, the moral guidelines our society ahs created, are only there to keep us "Inside" the society -- a cog -- the most basic need of the human race is to stay alive -- therefore to stay in a safe environment. cont.
Everything you say is true. I agree with it. But i think that ultimate egoism won't lead to happiness, but only more attachment and dualism. As a buddhist, i try to practice altruism. I see my mental needs as inferior, therefore i am trying to go beyond my ego, and that is were ultimate happiness lies.
what are your views on that claim? why dont u think all actions are products of selfish motives whether one is aware of those motives or not(not that i think that im just wondering)
I think all people act towards their own VALUES. However, not everyone comes to their values rationally, and thus many people act towards values that are detrimental to their self-interest.
I believe in egoism, but what is the "self"... does it include family? ancestors? what if I am of a self with my cousin? I might well want, selfishly, what is best for the whole group of cousins.
We share frames of reference with others, so we share "best interest for the self" and thus we share "self interest".
If you value other people, than their interests can become your interests too. This is still entirely selfish, since their happiness affects your happiness (and indeed, most psychologically healthy people are going to need relationships with other people to be happy)
agreed... but how much "choice" is there really? we know about DNA, we know even the Banana is our cousin... if we define self not to include, sometimes, these other living things, then why stop there? Why consider the liver or the heart part of the self? If we could survive in a vat (our brain, that is)... would that mean we would have no reason to fight for the survival of our liver's and hearts?
so we can choose to value people, but in terms of the criteria which make something in or out of a self-identity, some things will have to be in there (our cousins) if other things are to be in there in the first place (our internal cousins, our livers...)
A lot of this goes into the concept of values and how they relate to the self. I might do a video explaining in more detail what egoism is, how it works, etc. This was more of a video to address irrational complaints that egoists commonly hear.
Long term Egoism might then be the natural order in a civilised world. People can be Egoists and care for others as much as they care for themselves I think.
Conversely short term Egoist will be thieves, murderers, rapists, and other hurtful individuals etc. Hedonists might be short term Egoists but may or may not care about others too.
So can we objectively determine that youtube videos are made to satisfy our egos? If so does this compromise, and to what degree if it does, our message? Is it really all about getting another pat on the head? I ask myself this. Pardon the babbling.
I've always considered egoism to be essentially natural. Individuals have to be indoctrinated or self-deluded into thinking otherwise, because the human race would falter severely without. I see the same fallacy in altrusim that I see in collectivism (not that altrusim is immoral, but it's not a logical approach to life).
I suppose usually there's not a difference, as most moral decisions are logical and vise versa. However, let's say I have to decide between working on Saturday to meet a deadline or helping a friend move. I decide to help the friend, which can be regarded as altruistic (assuming I'm not compensated) and not necessarily logical, but it's not immoral.
Ah, but it is logical if the benefit you gain from helping your friend is higher than the benefit of working on Saturday to meet a deadline. Keep in mind that an emotional gain (such as joy from knowing you helped a friend) is a gain nonetheless.
Well, I can see that, but I don't know whether it's possible to weigh emotional gain against material gain -- not directly, anyway. I might be glad help on Saturday, but the decision could create regret the following week when I'm late delivering a client's project. Was the decision to help the friend "immoral" in retrospect? I dunno.
It is possible, you probably do it all the time. In the example you gave, certainly you'd agree that, if that situation actually occurred, you would try to determine what the consequence of each decision would be and make the one that yields the best net result.
Morality lies within the bounds of your knowledge, for one cannot be expected to be omniscient. Morality would be using your knowledge and attempting to make the best decision based on that.
People don't even concern them self's with what is immediately beneficial, do you really think billions of people are capable of basing morality around what they think will benefit them in the future, and what about other aspects of life that contradict happiness, what about a compulsion for pain, egoist tend to assert their morality as the only thing that is a correct morality. It's bears a strong correlation with every other morality that can be seen as unjust.
a lot of people aren't worrying about being happy, they don't even know what happy is, or at least how to achieve it, and when they do know what it is they don't try to achieve it, why, I could speculate for days but I don't know. It's not logical but welcome to the real world buddy, personally I agree with your theories But what I don't agree with is this, "Egoism is the only correct morality if your goal in life is to be happy."
Something that I've been saying for a long time is that people only help others because it's what they want to do, and it's because it's what makes them happy. Even "altruists" perform unselfish acts for their own ends, to bring themselves internal gratification.
Exactly, there isnt much compasion in egotism, and weir talking about morals hear so others points hoever pointless are valid because morality is just as pointless and subjective even when it's explained in such an absolute way.
What about people who behave and do what they think they halpht to, it's hard to have ego when every day your weighed down by everything you ultimatly have no apparnt controle of. Fuck respect fuck humility fuck egotism, be, try to be well.
The fact that you let life crush you (which is silly and pointless) is not going to stop me from living for my own happiness. Nor is it an argument for why I shouldn't.
@sheepblitzer I think its argument is that if you give money, the underlying motive is to "feel good", to gain a stronger friendship with a person or to appear altruistic super-ficially to others, etc. Your final point is about the end result of an action; egoism is about motives not result, I believe.
will34uk 1 month ago
i think the egoism/altruism debate is meaningless, since acting in these ways is based on what we THINK is best for onselfs/others.
but once we realize that all humanity is connected and shares the same fate, altruism and egoism become one in the same!
sheepblitzer 2 years ago
so your saying that giving money to a friend, or to charity, or working hard for someone else--things that at a first glance we'd consider altruistic--are actually egoistic?
also, things like becoming educated, producing, creating, etc, that we'd assume are beneficial to oneself (egoist) can actually help others, and are therefore altruistic....
sheepblitzer 2 years ago
Is there a difference between egoism and egomania, and if not, why did they come up with two different words for something that basically is the same!?
DJLorenzen 3 years ago
Egomania would be obsession with yourself at the expense of your own long-term self interest and psychological health.
Not the same thing at all.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
So basically you are saying that an 'egomane' is an egoist that don't play the game well!? A person that don't understand when he has to give and take to, when all comes to all, get most out of the situation. Sounds reasonable.
DJLorenzen 3 years ago
soz, my last 3 coments are in the wrong order...
hagbardce 4 years ago
I would like to underline this with a far more drastic complaint, I have heard while talking about egoism: "Do you think a women loves her child for herself?" I agree that the "Motherly-love" is the under the strongest, but have to also ask a question back: "Wouldn't you knock a mother that hates her baby out of your society?"
Think about that.
(Sorry about the bad English, I am a 17 year old german)
hagbardce 4 years ago
Like you said positive actions have a positive effect on ones self in the long run, I totally agree, but the effect in the long run IS that we can continue to take part in our society, and therefore receive the safety it gives us. I would like to add that this has nothing to do with everybody being the same, like robots. It is just the mere nature of human kind, to seek safety, and a prolonging of life. cont.
hagbardce 4 years ago
I would like to disagree to your answer to the final complaint, I think, the moral guidelines our society ahs created, are only there to keep us "Inside" the society -- a cog -- the most basic need of the human race is to stay alive -- therefore to stay in a safe environment. cont.
hagbardce 4 years ago
Everything you say is true. I agree with it. But i think that ultimate egoism won't lead to happiness, but only more attachment and dualism. As a buddhist, i try to practice altruism. I see my mental needs as inferior, therefore i am trying to go beyond my ego, and that is were ultimate happiness lies.
rob1n007 4 years ago
alright i c
jwp22announcer 4 years ago
what are your views on that claim? why dont u think all actions are products of selfish motives whether one is aware of those motives or not(not that i think that im just wondering)
jwp22announcer 4 years ago
I think all people act towards their own VALUES. However, not everyone comes to their values rationally, and thus many people act towards values that are detrimental to their self-interest.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
do u agree with psycological egoism? or do u think psycological egoism and objectivism are the same? maybe i misinterpreted what you said
jwp22announcer 4 years ago
I disagree with the claim that all people act towards their own interests.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Good video. I'd like to see you do more on the subject.
Taors 4 years ago
I believe in egoism, but what is the "self"... does it include family? ancestors? what if I am of a self with my cousin? I might well want, selfishly, what is best for the whole group of cousins.
We share frames of reference with others, so we share "best interest for the self" and thus we share "self interest".
pyrrho314 4 years ago
If you value other people, than their interests can become your interests too. This is still entirely selfish, since their happiness affects your happiness (and indeed, most psychologically healthy people are going to need relationships with other people to be happy)
XOmniverse 4 years ago
agreed... but how much "choice" is there really? we know about DNA, we know even the Banana is our cousin... if we define self not to include, sometimes, these other living things, then why stop there? Why consider the liver or the heart part of the self? If we could survive in a vat (our brain, that is)... would that mean we would have no reason to fight for the survival of our liver's and hearts?
pyrrho314 4 years ago
so we can choose to value people, but in terms of the criteria which make something in or out of a self-identity, some things will have to be in there (our cousins) if other things are to be in there in the first place (our internal cousins, our livers...)
pyrrho314 4 years ago
A lot of this goes into the concept of values and how they relate to the self. I might do a video explaining in more detail what egoism is, how it works, etc. This was more of a video to address irrational complaints that egoists commonly hear.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Long term Egoism might then be the natural order in a civilised world. People can be Egoists and care for others as much as they care for themselves I think.
Conversely short term Egoist will be thieves, murderers, rapists, and other hurtful individuals etc. Hedonists might be short term Egoists but may or may not care about others too.
fr3thinker 4 years ago
Egoism transitions logically to natural rights and laissez-faire capitalism. So yes, I think it is the source of natural, civilized order.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
So can we objectively determine that youtube videos are made to satisfy our egos? If so does this compromise, and to what degree if it does, our message? Is it really all about getting another pat on the head? I ask myself this. Pardon the babbling.
gklr 4 years ago
I know I do my videos cuz I enjoy doing them.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
I've always considered egoism to be essentially natural. Individuals have to be indoctrinated or self-deluded into thinking otherwise, because the human race would falter severely without. I see the same fallacy in altrusim that I see in collectivism (not that altrusim is immoral, but it's not a logical approach to life).
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
What's the difference between something being a moral decision and something being a logical decision?
XOmniverse 4 years ago
I suppose usually there's not a difference, as most moral decisions are logical and vise versa. However, let's say I have to decide between working on Saturday to meet a deadline or helping a friend move. I decide to help the friend, which can be regarded as altruistic (assuming I'm not compensated) and not necessarily logical, but it's not immoral.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
Ah, but it is logical if the benefit you gain from helping your friend is higher than the benefit of working on Saturday to meet a deadline. Keep in mind that an emotional gain (such as joy from knowing you helped a friend) is a gain nonetheless.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Well, I can see that, but I don't know whether it's possible to weigh emotional gain against material gain -- not directly, anyway. I might be glad help on Saturday, but the decision could create regret the following week when I'm late delivering a client's project. Was the decision to help the friend "immoral" in retrospect? I dunno.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
It is possible, you probably do it all the time. In the example you gave, certainly you'd agree that, if that situation actually occurred, you would try to determine what the consequence of each decision would be and make the one that yields the best net result.
Morality lies within the bounds of your knowledge, for one cannot be expected to be omniscient. Morality would be using your knowledge and attempting to make the best decision based on that.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
awesome video
JessmanChicken86 4 years ago
People don't even concern them self's with what is immediately beneficial, do you really think billions of people are capable of basing morality around what they think will benefit them in the future, and what about other aspects of life that contradict happiness, what about a compulsion for pain, egoist tend to assert their morality as the only thing that is a correct morality. It's bears a strong correlation with every other morality that can be seen as unjust.
MySeverdTies 4 years ago
"Do you really think billions of people are capable of basing morality around what they think will benefit them in the future"
Sure, people do it all the time. Egoism is the only correct morality if your goal in life is to be happy.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
a lot of people aren't worrying about being happy, they don't even know what happy is, or at least how to achieve it, and when they do know what it is they don't try to achieve it, why, I could speculate for days but I don't know. It's not logical but welcome to the real world buddy, personally I agree with your theories But what I don't agree with is this, "Egoism is the only correct morality if your goal in life is to be happy."
MySeverdTies 4 years ago
I don't get it. Is your argument that "Because many people are immoral, nobody should bother being moral?"
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Something that I've been saying for a long time is that people only help others because it's what they want to do, and it's because it's what makes them happy. Even "altruists" perform unselfish acts for their own ends, to bring themselves internal gratification.
DemonzLunchBreak 4 years ago
This is exactly why the idea that charity and egoism are incompatible is bogus, as well as any claim that humans are "naturally altruistic."
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Yeah, exactly.
DemonzLunchBreak 4 years ago
Exactly, there isnt much compasion in egotism, and weir talking about morals hear so others points hoever pointless are valid because morality is just as pointless and subjective even when it's explained in such an absolute way.
MySeverdTies 4 years ago
Why would anyone live for anything other than happiness? What other goal makes sense?
XOmniverse 4 years ago
What about people who behave and do what they think they halpht to, it's hard to have ego when every day your weighed down by everything you ultimatly have no apparnt controle of. Fuck respect fuck humility fuck egotism, be, try to be well.
MySeverdTies 4 years ago
The fact that you let life crush you (which is silly and pointless) is not going to stop me from living for my own happiness. Nor is it an argument for why I shouldn't.
XOmniverse 4 years ago