[Serious] An Argument For Ethical Egoism

[Rev. Rye]

Looking further at the argument, I think I’ve figured out where the argument’s problem lies. Ought may very well imply can. The thing is, “ought implies can” isn’t what you’re doing here. You’re arguing that, because humankind is hardwired towards psychological egoism, then ethical egoism is true. What exactly is meant by that? If you’re saying ethical egoism is good, then it sounds a lot like a naturalistic fallacy. You claim that “ought implies is,” but your argument appears to be getting it exactly backwards, getting an ought from an is. If not, then what exactly do you mean, especially given that ethics is all about finding out what the good even is? The most reasonable conclusion I can discern it is that ethical egoism is a good practical strategy for ethics (except when one’s self-interest conflicts with another’s), or that, because of our bias towards psychological egoism, figuring out what’s right and wrong beyond “how dare you care about your selfish desires when you could be caring about my selfish desires” is a dead end (which I would think could very well be in conflict with Premise 1.) It’s okay if you’re arguing either of those last two, but if you’re arguing the former, than ethical egoism is not a complete answer in itself, and if you’re arguing the latter, then it kind of defeats the whole purpose of ethics. If you’re taking a third option, what exactly is it? Connect the dots, because the OP argument isn’t doing it as well as previously thought.