Secular Ethics: 'Ethical' Egoism

Ethical Egoism is hopelessly arbitrary, and certainly not objective.
Up next, Utilitarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmQvRm_4tmI


Recommended Reading/Sources:
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Penguins Dictionary of Philosophy
Rachels EOMP**
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0073386715/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1/190-5285471...
Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
Aquinas: On Law, Morality and Politics
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0073386715/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1/190-5285471...
Kurt Baier The Moral Point of View
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2178/misuse.html
http://cabrutus.livejournal.com/142510.html



Music:
Heart Crazy on You
DS Sultans of Swing
Mozart-The Marriage of Figaro
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 21 Andante
Chris Broderick - Double BWV 997, J.S. Bach

Images: Google.com (education)

*heavily

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Christianity
• Apologetics
• Christ
• God
• Theism
• Morality
• Ethics
• secular
• godless
• moral
• immoral
• scapegoat
• Ayn Rand
• arbitrary
• objectivism
• Thomas Hobbes
• St. Thomas Aquinas
• Virtue Ethics
• relativism
• atheism
• nihilism
• Catholic Church

[migkillertwo]

can you unpack your argument at 8:50 ?

[Theologica37]

Sure;

1. One's sole duty is to do one's interest. (EO)

2. It is in O's best interest to murder M.

3. It is in M's best interest to prevent O from murdering him.

4. Therefore, O's duty is to murder M, and M's to prevent it.

5. It is wrong to prevent someone from doing his duty.

6. Therefore, it is wrong for M to prevent O from the murder.

7. Therefore, it is both wrong and not wrong for M to prevent O from murdering him. (contradictory)

C. The assumption with which we started (1) cannot be true.

[migkillertwo]

So basically, because self-interests can conflict with eachother, morality must be relative if egoism is true?

[Theologica37]

Relativism is the escape hatch from that scenario; yes. I don't think Baier is saying that egoism necessitates relativism so much as he is that its false. But supposing that it does lead to relativism (it seems it must); presenting any of the problems with relative systems would bring down the cards.

[StutteringDave]

Great video. I seriously hope that Dhorpatan tries to make some kind of response to this.

[Theologica37]

It was not directed at anyone in particular.. I do not expect a response from that user or any others who believe that moral values, or for that matter any fact, can come from a contingent world alone. Such a thing is nothing short of a logical impossibility-- seeing as how ''objectiv'ists' have apparently convinced themselves that matter, energy is "existence" .. and of course, let us remember "only existence exists".

..Obviously this sort of reasoning does not even deserve comment.

[migkillertwo]

not a chance

[ProudToBLoud]

theo is one of the brightest posters on youtube. 5 stars.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

I am disappointed to see that this video has positive comments. You indulge in ad hominem attacks (describing Rand as a 'cult leader') and then attempt to dismiss the arguments by establishing a straw man. Then, in comments, you say that Objectivist reasoning doesn't deserve a response because 'existence exists' (the fundamental axiom at the base of every meaningful statement) "does not even deserve comment"; thus implying that you think ideas don't have to be consistent.

[witt19800]

@Theologica37 How does statement 5 necessarily follow from statement 4?

[neko2808]

Remix the sound please, so we can hear you.

[Chrisvonbiskirk]

@Theologica37you acted as if you have disproved pyschological egoism claims,throught saying some may feel a need to hold up to a promise,they feel a obligation and don't want to do it but do it to hold up to the promise.which is no more justified that the pychological egoist claims.How do you know this is so?how do you know that its not your desire which is motivating you towards doing so?

How do you know its not just your feeling of empathy or other feelings motivating you to act this way?

[tumbleweedjoe]

Great video. It's amazing to me that a person could be interested enough in morality enough to feel the need to develop a moral theory, while at the same time, so deluded as to the nature of morality to mistake egoism for morality. Really it's almost the opposite of morality.

[SenariXarn]

Actually--and this is why psychological egoism is one of those things that, by its very definition, cannot be refuted--the process of adhering to a moral guideline of any sort presents the conflict of desires within an individual. Either the desire to go against morality and pursue their original action or their desire to adhere to the guideline supersedes that of the original desire.

Regardless, it is still the person's desire that guides their choice, their exertion of free will.

[smellarm]

An very impressive video.

But I still do not see a way in which people do not fundamentally behave in their own interests at all times.

You imply that objective moral truths can be derived from the bible / divine revelation but how can these truth claims be anything other than your opinion?

What demonstrably objective standard do you use?

For example, how do you know that that holocaust was "objectively wrong"?

Any answer is necessarily your opinion unless you can show the standard.

[coachtaskmaster]

"It's only contradicting if we determine that there is an objective "law of non-contradiction". That's not the case in reality, however."

Whaaat?!? I certainly hope you're being sarcastic here? No objective law of non-contradiction in reality? Surely you jest? Though, this would explain why you would make a statement like, "I have no interest in submitting to the philosophical consistency that you seek." IOW, your life is systemically contradictory.

[cherylwens]

"Ethical egoism violates the law of non-contradiction on a myriad of fronts."

Not so for me. My self-interest is unwavering. It's only contradicting if we determine that there is an objective "law of non-contradiction". That's not the case in reality, however.

[cherylwens]

Morality is a tool that helps us thrive in society, just as logic and philosophy help us make sense of the world we live in. That however, does not make them the laws of nature. There is no logic behind earthquakes and tsunamis. Therefore, it will be pragmatic for me to dictate that my liberty shall not be violated while that of others can be. I have no interest in submitting to the philosophical consistency that you seek. To put it succinctly, the ends justify the means.