[Serious] An Argument For Ethical Egoism

[SenseMaker007]

The truth of premises 1,2, and 3 could not establish that ethical egoism is true

It does establish it because if moral realism is true then we, morally speaking, ought to do something.

If we only ought to do what we can do, and psychological egoism is true, then it is true that the only thing that we ought to do is act in our own self-interest. That's ethical egoism.

---

The truth of premises 1,2, and 3 could not establish that ethical egoism is true - it could only establish that insomuch as there might be realist obligations in the selfless set (p1), we are incapable of fulfilling them(p1,p2), and thus not morally culpable for a practical failure in that event regardless of whether or not we have an obligation to attempt.  (p1,p2,p3)

It could be a solid argument for descent modification, and the underlying rationale for our intuitions about people who do their best, fail as a practical matter of fact - but are still seen as moral exemplars*, even if it doesn't demonstrate the truth of a metaethical position as contended.

*and vv, that a practical success can still be a moral failure.

Which I believe some were making a point about. I believe the point was that while you're not morally obligated to bang your head into a wall and shouldn't be morally reprimanded for not trying, the attempt is impractical and thus worthless and irrational.

This doesn't address the argument.

---

I'm commenting more to the effect that even if we were morally obligated to bang our heads against walls - an implication of premise 1.  We'll use that as the example for it's pure lulz value.

Even if we deem the morally right action to be 'pure lulz' ... it doesn't mean it isn't also a morally right act.

The argument is valid and you have failed to address that.