[Serious] An Argument For Ethical Egoism

[vulcanlogician]

Premise 1: Moral realism is true in some form. There are objective moral values and there must be some things that are objectively right and wrong to do.

Premise 2: Psychological egoism is true. We are ultimately only capable of acting within our own self-interest because even, what on the surface appears to be, selfless acts ultimately benefit the self in some way.

Premise 3: Ought implies can. It makes no sense to say that we ought to do or avoid doing something that we can't.

Conclusion: Ethical Egoism is true.

Rev got me thinking. Does the conclusion follow from the premises here? I don't think it does.

"Ethical egoism is true" IFF "The morally correct action is the action done in self interest." I don't think any of the premises proves this.

I think premise 2 is false but even if it's true it doesn't support the conclusion. Let's assume that psychological egoism is true. Hedonistic utilitarianism may also be true, and thus, a moral agent ought to select (among the various self interested actions he may take) those actions that maximize pleasure and happiness.

Even assuming we are limited to self interested actions, that doesn't make ethical egoism true.