Rational egoism: Difference between revisions
edited for sophistry removal |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
In rational egoism, one pursues only those things that, in reality, are a value to one's own life. Thus, although jumping out of a plane over the Rocky Mountains without a parachute might "maximize" someone's "pleasure" over the very short term, the facts of reality dictate that such a jump will not be a value to one's life. Instead, the facts of reality dictate that one is likely to lose values, or to die. |
In rational egoism, one pursues only those things that, in reality, are a value to one's own life. Thus, although jumping out of a plane over the Rocky Mountains without a parachute might "maximize" someone's "pleasure" over the very short term, the facts of reality dictate that such a jump will not be a value to one's life. Instead, the facts of reality dictate that one is likely to lose values, or to die. |
||
In rational egoism, one never pursues values by irrational means. One does not resort to theft, fraud, physical coercion, etc. in the pursuit of values. It is erroneous, therefore, to assert that rational egoism "allows people to do anything they want". Rather, it is more the assertion that "one can do anything one wants as long as one can rationally justify their reasons for doing so." |
|||
Rational egoism distinguishes between physical sensations and emotions. "Pleasure" is a physical sensation. "Happiness", in contrast, is an emotion. In rational egoism, the highest purpose of one's life is one's own happiness, not one's own "pleasure". |
|||
===Prisoner's dilemma=== |
===Prisoner's dilemma=== |
||
Revision as of 03:06, 7 January 2009
Rational egoism is the thesis that rational actions will always be those in one's own self-interest.[1] The view is a normative form of egoism. However, it is different from other forms of egoism, such as ethical egoism and psychological egoism.[2] While psychological egoism is about motivation and ethical egoism is about morality, rational egoism is a view about rationality.
Ayn Rand is well known for endorsing what she calls "rational egoism". This, however, departs a bit from standard usage. On the standard terminology, Rand's view is a normative theory conjoining both ethical egoism and rational egoism.[3]
Social sciences
Rational egoism is the standard behavioral postulate of neoclassical economics and of rational actor theory in political science. The economic assumption of rational egoism is often referred to in terms of the implied model of the individual, homo economicus, a term that has been used at least since Pareto (1906).
In both fields, the postulate has been criticized and defended on a range of empirical and philosophical grounds. For example, in political science, the assumption of rational egoism gives rise to the paradox of voting - given the low probability of being decisive, relative to the personal benefit from a change in the outcome, voting in elections is not rational unless the number of electors is very small.[4] Supporters of rational egoism, however, might point out that this argument is not sound because cultural influences might incentivize voting. Additionally, Scott Aaronson notes that the likelihood of one vote being decisive is on the order of the square root of the number of voters, due to the central limit theorem. However, the utility of a vote could be expected to scale linearly with the number of voters, implying that one should vote because its importants outweighs the chance that it will make a difference.[5]
Ayn Rand
"Rational egoism" is a name given by author and philosopher Ayn Rand to the ethical branch of her philosophy, Objectivism. She holds that it is both irrational and immoral to act against one's self-interest.[6] Thus, her view is a conjunction of both rational egoism (in the standard sense) and ethical egoism. Her book The Virtue of Selfishness (1964) explains in depth the concept of rational egoism. According to Rand's ethical egoism, every individual's own life is his or her own highest value; rationality is every human being's highest virtue, and ones own happiness is the highest purpose of ones life.
Ayn Rand rejected David Hume's assertion that one cannot derive an ought from an is. Contrary to the philosophies of others, Rand asserted that the facts of reality, including the nature of a human being, allow each individual to determine what he or she ought to do given his or her needs and wants, but no person can make such determinations without first choosing to think rationally. According to Rand, the life of a human being is the standard by which things are determined either to be values to be pursued, or non-values/disvalues not to be pursued. For example, man has no wings with which to fly, so if in some situation a man decides to jump from a plane, he should decide also to wear a parachute. The facts of reality dictate that, if he does not do so, he is much more likely to suffer a loss of values (e.g., his health or his life).
In Rand's ethics, the greatest vice is irrationality. In practice, Rand regarded it irrational to leave others to do the rational thinking for you. Because rational thought is necessary for the creation of values by human beings, the irrational person, by failing to think for himself, puts his fate in the hands of those who think rationally. In other words, the person who refuses to think for himself will die unless others give him values that he has not earned. The irrational person is, accordingly, a "second hander" and, often, will resort to the life of a "parasite", who hopes to live by means of "mooching" (begging for values) or "looting" (trying to obtain values from others by coercing them with physical force).
In Rand's philosophy charity is not a duty, and it is not a virtue. However, nor is charity regarded as morally wrong in all cases. According to Rand's philosophy, if charity were a moral duty, it would not be benevolent: to give what you owe a person is not an act of benevolence. Hence, she explained, philosophies in which each person has a duty to give charity to others are philosophies in which benevolent acts are impossible. Charity is not wrong, and it is an act of benevolence in Rand's philosophy, if one will suffer no significant loss by engaging in charity, and the person to whom the charity is given is a good person who is in need due to matters beyond their control. In contrast, it is wrong, according to Rand, to give charity to evil people.
Criticism
A general reaction to rational egoism is the erroneous belief that it allows people to do anything they want to maximize their pleasure. This criticism ignores the rationality that distinguishes rational egoism from other forms of egoism. Egoism itself is merely the putting of oneself first: the term does not refer to any particular way of doing so.
In rational egoism, one pursues only those things that, in reality, are a value to one's own life. Thus, although jumping out of a plane over the Rocky Mountains without a parachute might "maximize" someone's "pleasure" over the very short term, the facts of reality dictate that such a jump will not be a value to one's life. Instead, the facts of reality dictate that one is likely to lose values, or to die.
Prisoner's dilemma
Egoists debate whether or not the prisoners dilemma can be applied to the philosophy of rational egoism.
It is purported that the possibility exists for situations to arise where acting on selfishness will not yield the best result.[7]. An example of this situation, known as Prisoner's dilemma, is discussed in Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.[8] In this situation, two suspects in an investigation are taken into custody and split up. Each is offered a plea bargain individually, if they turn state's evidence and betray the other. If they both betray, they each serve 2 years in prison. However, if the other suspect doesn't betray, then the one betraying goes free and the other serves 10 years. If neither betrays, then they will only spend six months in prison. The dilemma can be summarized as thus;
| Prisoner B Stays Silent | Prisoner B Betrays | |
|---|---|---|
| Prisoner A Stays Silent | Both serve six months | Prisoner A serves ten years Prisoner B goes free |
| Prisoner A Betrays | Prisoner A goes free Prisoner B serves ten years |
Both serve two years |
This purports to show that circumstances may exist in which rational pursuit of self-interest does not lead to a Pareto optimal solution.
See also
Notes
- ^ Baier (1990), p. 201; Gert (1998), p. 69; Shaver (2002), §3; Moseley (2006), §2.
- ^ Baier (1990), p. 201; Gert (1998), p. 69; Shaver (2002), §3; Moseley (2006), §2.
- ^ Smith (2006), p. 14; Moseley (2006), §2a.
- ^ Mueller (1989).
- ^ http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=364
- ^ Smith (2006); Moseley (2006), §2a.
- ^ Moseley (2006), §2a.
- ^ McKenzie (2003).
References and further reading
- Baier, Kurt (1990). "Egoism" in A Companion to Ethics. Peter Singer (ed.), Blackwell: Oxford.
- Gauthier, David (1986). Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Gert, Bernard (1998). Morality: Its Nature and Justification. Oxford University Press.
- McKenzie, Alexander J. (2003). "Evolutionary Game Theory". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). link
- Moseley, Alexander (2006). "Egoism". The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. J. Fieser & B. Dowden (eds.). link
- Mueller, D. (1989). Public Choice II. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Rand, Ayn (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness. New American Library.
- Shaver, Robert (1998). Rational Egoism: A Selective and Critical History. Cambridge University Press.
- Shaver, Robert (2002). "Egoism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). link
- Smith, Tara (2006). Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
- Sober, E. & D.S. Wilson (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Harvard University Press.