I’ve recently been brainwashed by my ethics prof to accept egoistic hedonism as the ethics which would produce the best possible state for the world. Let me explain…
I do not see myself in light of individuality. I see myself defined in this world by certain physical and mental characteristics, but the real “me” seems to exist outside of those things. When I can quiet my senses, or embrace LSD I see how absolutely dependent my life is on absolutely every event in the world. aka. butterfly effect theory
In that light, my actions seem to produce the greatest good when I act purely in my own self interest. When I come to that frame of mind with solid logic, and an awareness of the world’s interconnectivity, I see absolute necessity in working towards certain goods. Surely, if I was face to face with absolute poverty, I could not ignore it for doing so would lead to overwhelming sensations of guilt. But, I can also be willfully ignorant of problems that might cause me distress and some might argue that doing so would serve to increase my happiness (best interest.) My reply would be to note that doing so is not actually in my or anyone’s best interest. Perhaps, willfull ignorance can lead to a better than current state, but never can it lead to the best possible state. At least that is where my question lies. Can anyone think of a time when remaining ignorant to an atrocity would result in the best possible state for an individual? Alternatively, can people provide objections to my arguement so that I can get over the mental block of actually thinking I have the answer to morality.
Kind of funny, I think the converse of your position: That the best way to be selfish is to help others. I think by explaining my position, I can address yours.
It is actually founded the same way yours is, on the idea of the butterfly effect. My actions have rippling effects throughout the world. I think where we differ, and why I reject your throey, is that I am a part of the world.
Let me explain: If I am selfish and steal in order to get ahead, I help myself in the short term at the expense of others. But I lend my hand to the creation of a world that will hurt myself and others in the long run - a world in which there is less trust, where people think less of theft because they’ve seen it more, a world in which I need to protect my possessions from theft and so have to expend resources to do so, etc.
But if I give to others, and am generous, honest, noble, etc., I restore trust, I inspire like action, I improve the world in the long run. I am acting entirely selfishly, because I am being a good person only so that I will have a better world to live in. But it is short-sighted to be selfish by stealing, by extorting, by making the world worse in some way.
It might be naive, but it passes the categorical imperative.
That is a very good response. I have been a buddhist, albiet a poor one, for about 5 years and that is exactly what both the Buddha and the Dali Llama would have said. The Dali Llama would call it being “wisely selfish”. I should point out that though I agree with this outlook, it does require a more long term mindset than the immediate gratification of one’s desires, as well as considerable altruism. Only if you can fully grasp the (buddhist) concept of emptiness does it really work for you.
Not just those two. Confucius expressed a similar sentiment:
6:28 of the Analects:
“…As for humaneness—you want to establish yourself; then help others to establish themselves. You want to develop yourself; then help others to develop themselves. Being able to recognize oneself in others, one is on the way to being humane.”
I see how absolutely dependent my life is on absolutely every event in the world. aka. butterfly effect theory