[Serious] An Argument For Ethical Egoism

[vulcanlogician]

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.

Take an example of a drug addict who continues to use drugs. According to the psychological egoist, he does so out of self-interest. But what if he decides to quit using drugs and spend more time with his family? That's self-interest, too. (Investing more time with his loved ones benefits him in the long run by strengthening bonds. Quitting drugs contributes to his physical and mental health etc.) Therefore, one of the problems with psychological egoism is that it stretches the term "self-interested" beyond its typical usage and (by the time we are concluding things like "the only ethical action is a self-interested one) we are equivocating.

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

Let me dig up the book I was speaking of. I will be happy to defend the position that psychological egoism is false.