Philosophical Vegan Forum

Soycrates wrote: I'm not sure we're getting anywhere with this because I don't feel we're on the same page about Rand, but I wanted to correct you on this - I said you misread me first. You thought I said "opposite" but I said "opposition". As in it opposes it, as in it directly challenges the idea.

Yes, I caught that. Altruism is one of the main oppositions to Egoism (though not the only one). I think I read it that way because you said "the", as in sole- which is relevant to opposites, but not necessarily to oppositions.

I just wanted to clarify that I didn't think that Sadism was the opposite of Egoism (on that, I think you misread me as well). Sadism, of course, isn't an important opposition to anything, because it's not substantially prevalent in our society. However, it is conceptually important, to understand the place of egoism- which is completely off the ethical continuum.

Soycrates wrote: I understand you don't think egoism is ethical, but I'm not suggesting it is - I am talking about the philosophical position called Ethical Egoism held by a number of philosophers, and not claiming that it is valid or that you should accept it.

I know you don't think Egoism is ethical, like I said, I'm glad to meet somebody who didn't drink that Kool-Aid.

I'm not just saying it's not ethical, I'm saying it's not even a form of ethics. I don't think it belongs anywhere in the discussion on ethics, because it's just the naïve default in a world completely devoid of any concept of morality.
People can call it a form of ethics or morals if they want, but calling something doesn't make it so.

I think I don't take it as seriously as you do, as philosophy.

I understand people make the claim to it being a philosophical position, but the same can be said of the theory "God did it, end of discussion", which is in itself one of the closest things to the opposite of philosophy there is, or even dialetheism.
Philosophers can be far too accommodating some times; not every idea that they let in the building necessarily deserves to be there, or needs to be taken seriously -- that's all I'm trying to say.

brimstoneSalad wrote: I'm not just saying it's not ethical, I'm saying it's not even a form of ethics. I don't think it belongs anywhere in the discussion on ethics, because it's just the naïve default in a world completely devoid of any concept of morality.
People can call it a form of ethics or morals if they want, but calling something doesn't make it so.

Ethics is literally just "systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior" (according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). If someone systematizes, defends, and recommends concepts of right and wrong behaviour on the axiom of Egoism, they are talking about Ethics. Whether you agree with their position or not doesn't suddenly decide whether or not it is "really" ethics.

Just because Ethical Egoism isn't right doesn't mean we cast it out of its category and pretend it doesn't exist, or that it hasn't been promoted by well-known philosophers for a greater period of history. I think it's especially important to learn about what it entails and who held it as a belief since so many popular philosophers people trust or idolize happen to have held it. It would be almost dangerous to do otherwise. Just like someone might read one of Ayn Rand's fiction novels and get a warped sense of what she believed in, and start claiming they believe it too because it has been put forth to them in a positive, flowery way.

Soycrates wrote:I think it's especially important to learn about what it entails and who held it as a belief since so many popular philosophers people trust or idolize happen to have held it. It would be almost dangerous to do otherwise. Just like someone might read one of Ayn Rand's fiction novels and get a warped sense of what she believed in, and start claiming they believe it too because it has been put forth to them in a positive, flowery way.

I completely agree with this, just as I learn about what the popular religions advocate, just as I study the Christian bible, Qur'an, and others.

I try not to legitimize dogma and mythology as philosophy, though (which is not to say that there aren't a few sparse grains of philosophy in those books, but for the most part they are not).
Words have substantial power, and by recognizing something as belonging to a coveted group, we give it inherent credibility.

It's why some of the more famous Atheist scientists refuse to debate creationists -- it implies there is a discussion to be had. Creationism is not science, and even though creationists may abuse scientific terminology and call it "creation science" it doesn't mean it is.

I'm all for debunking, and learning about them in order to do that, but calling them philosophy (whether science or ethics) I'm not.

Ethics, like science, as a branch of philosophy, also implies some coherent internal logic. Not only do these things not belong in the classroom, they don't belong in the building, except in the context of the greatest failings in the history of philosophy and politics.

Soycrates wrote:If someone systematizes, defends, and recommends concepts of right and wrong behaviour on the axiom of Egoism, they are talking about Ethics. Whether you agree with their position or not doesn't suddenly decide whether or not it is "really" ethics.

If people could actually do that coherently without directly contradicting themselves in the process, they would arguably be creating a new branch of ethics. Just as anybody using objective scientific methodology would be creating a new branch of creation science if it had any merit. However, not all axioms and dogmas can be made into coherent systems, nor can all axioms be used to recommend objective behaviors or standards, or all dogmas be framed in a falsifiable way.

This is more along the lines of somebody saying "The only rule is that there are no rules" -- but what about that, which is a rule itself? Or better yet, "This statement is a lie."

How about that as an axiom? Ethical "This statement is a lie."ism. It's founded on the moral truth that "This statement is a lie." In order to behave rightly, all of your behavior must follow from that.

Did I just invent a new system of ethics? Why or why not?

In my book, not all things crazy people can dream up are coherent enough to be regarded as philosophy, be that ethics or science.
You may set the bar lower, but I look for a certain level of logic and internal consistency -- if something doesn't have it, it's not philosophy. It's that other thing.

Soycrates wrote:Just because Ethical Egoism isn't right doesn't mean we cast it out of its category

It's not just that it's morally wrong, it's incoherent. I'll grant that sadism as an ethical axiom could be used to form a coherent system. Cucumberism could even be used- let's maximize cucumbers! That's not saying the premises are valid, but they're capable of yielding recommendations at least. Egoism really isn't; it's just a negation, or backstep from the notion of morality.

Soycrates wrote:and pretend it doesn't exist, or that it hasn't been promoted by well-known philosophers for a greater period of history.

I'm not saying any of that. I just don't consider it to be philosophy, and as such, not a system of ethics either.

As I agreed earlier, it is important to learn about it, to defend against it. But only to the extent it's also important to know what's going on with any given pseudoscience in order to properly debunk it.

I'll call it a pseudophilosophy, if you like. Or pseudoethics. I'm OK with that. I can't call it ethics, or anything legitimately resembling philosophy though, any more than I can call Homeopathy, Creationism, or Astrology a science. They simply are not. They lack the rigor and consistency to be anything but pseudoscience.