There are, according to Rachel, three main arguments in favor of ethical egoism. We will examine them one by one.

The first is an argument containing three parts. (1) It is difficult to know for sure what exactly another person needs; by helping, we might do more harm than good. (2) Each individual is best charged with seeking and fulfilling his own needs; for him to help others would be an intrusion into another’s private life, in other words, “Minding another’s business.” And (3), many people don’t appreciate charity. Robert Heinlein, in the novel “Stranger in a Strange Land,“ expresses this sentiment perfectly. “The Japanese have five ways to say ’thank you’--and every one translates as resentment, in various degrees. Would that English had the same built-in honesty!” In Ra

The second argument for egoism, first conceived by Ayn Rand, states that altruism requires men to ‘sacrifice’ themselves in order to help others. By ‘sacrifice,’ Rand means to place the well-being and interests of others over one’s own. Basically, Rand argues that altruism is dangerous in that it puts people in a position where they must ‘grudgingly’ sacrifice themselves every day in hopes that another will do the same for them. But even if another does, this relationship “will bring mutual resentment, not pleasure,” (in parallel with argument 1 facet 3).

But just because Rachel’s objections fail doesn’t mean that the first argument upholds egoism. It is possible for altruism to be effective, as is evident in the Christmas present example; all we have to do is tell people how to help us. As for “minding our own business” as an argument for egoism, I really don’t understand how it could stand as an argument for anything. It’s strictly a matter of opinion whether or not one should mind or is minding his own business. There is also no way to define what exactly it is to “mind another’s business.” Where does one person’s private affairs begin? Isn’t the place relative? Certainly some people are more open about their affairs than others. How do we decide how far we can go with altruism before we begin invading the privacy of others? This particular facet of the first argument is nearly impossible to defend.

We only follow the rules we follow out of self interest. We want people to trust us, so we’re honest. We don’t want people to harm us, so we don’t harm people. Basically, the third argument for egoism provides justification for the Golden Rule. It also lays groundwork for our entire legal system. We have laws against murder because it is in our own self interest, we’d rather have murderers punished and locked up, because actually being murdered would be of the greatest injury to our own self interest. Basically, every bit of moral code we have can be explained by the egoism-Golden Rule. Rachel raises an objection to this third argument. He first states that egoism doesn’t prove “as much as it needs to prove.” “At best, it shows only that as a general rule it is to one’s own advantage to avoid harming others. It does not show that this is always so.” But is Rachel holding egoism to a higher standard than other moral codes? By attempting to make egoism fit our Ten Commandments morality, Rachel is effectively banging a square peg into a round hole. All other moral codes besides the Ten Commandments also fail in this same task. Utilitarianism provides justification for the worst of crimes, provided that the crime benefits the greatest good. Kantian ethics fails in the hijacker scenario; a Kantian would allow a plane full of innocents to crash into a building and kill thousands more; basically allow the deaths of thousands, to avoid murdering those on the plane. Divine command also fails to fit the Ten Commandment moral code, because God can command us to break those laws, and we must murder or kill or rape if God commands it. Really, Rachel could say what I’ve quoted above about nearly any moral code.

With this shading of altruism in his arguments, Rachel misunderstands and misrepresents the basic tenets of egoism. This is most obvious in his paraphrasing of the argument for egoism. “(1)We ought to do whatever will promote the best interests of everyone alike. (2)The interests of everyone will

Some topics in this essay:
Strange Land“, Rachel I’ve, , Rachel Rand, Ten Commandments, Altruism Rand’s, According Rand, I’m Rand, Rachel Instead, Rule Rachel, argument egoism, moral code, balancing act, own self, third argument, self sacrifice, pursuing own, one’s own, ethical egoism, pursuing own exclusively, middle ground, balancing act self, intrusion another’s private, balancing act rachel, policy pursuing own,