[Serious] An Argument For Ethical Egoism

[SenseMaker007]

If, however, we reduce all of human compulsion and ability down to seeking to maximize self interest, we don't need an argument linking (and limiting) obligation to ability, or for moral realism to be true, to reach our conclusion.

We do. All three premises are required. Otherwise, all you have is psychological egoism and psychological egoism alone is not the same thing as ethical egoism.

Rather than supplying you with a counterargument ... I'll just contradict you. Why? Because you've repeatedly demonstrated that you can't cope with decent counterarguments ... and because I've already given my argument in the OP.

---

I remember reading something that argued against psychological egoism. The author said that psychological egoism was more of a "conviction" than a coherent theory. His beef was that ANY action taken by anyone in any circumstances could be said to be "self-interested" and so the term, "self-interested" (if this is going to be its context) was rendered meaningless.

This is a thoughtful response. If selfishness is so loosely defined that literally the most courageously self-sacrificing acts can be deemed to be selfish ... then should that really fall under the umbrella of egoism?

---

Anyway, I'm not all convinced that psychological egoism is true, so I am therefore inclined to dismiss ethical egoism as a monistic theory.

Would you agree that the psychological egoism premise is definitely the most questionable?

Would you also agree that the other two premises are very sound?