[Serious] An Argument For Ethical Egoism

[Rev. Rye]

And even if P2 is true, then how can the application of the OIC principle in P3 lead to the conclusion without committing the naturalistic fallacy? If Ethical Egoism being true means it is not just a good, but The Good schema for ethical behaviour, the way P2 is flowing to the Conclusion seems to be "Egoism (psychologically) is true. Therefore, Egoism (ethically) is good."

If Ethical egoism being true doesn't necessarily mean it's good, then it would appear that Kryten here's not necessarily propping up a system of ethics, but demonstrating the limits to ethics and showing the inbuilt reasons why any and all systems of ethics eventually ends up getting undermined by human bullshit and how, as a result, expecting the pure form of these ethical systems to work simply isn't compatible with life on Earth (a conclusion that I wouldn't disagree with), and billing it as a proof of ethical egoism is fundamentally misleading. And, depending on how you explain the implications, it might start to conflict with P1.

I think the first warning bells rang in my head about P3 because, the way Kryten framed it, he seemed to be conflating "Inevitable" and "Good." And looking at the rebuttals, I'm still not seeing that distinction being made in the argument. And then I got so sidetracked with some argument about trying to beat Usain Bolt in a footrace that I missed the actual error staring at me right in the face.