Talk:Rational egoism

message: "Sidgwick found it difficult to find any persuasive reason for preferring rational egoism over utilitarianism. Although utilitarianism can be provided with a rational basis and reconciled with the morality of common sense, rational egoism appears to be an equally plausible doctrine regarding what we have most reason to do. Thus we must ‘admit an ultimate and fundamental contradiction in our apparent intuitions of what is Reasonable in conduct; and from this admission it would seem to follow that the apparently intuitive operation of Practical Reason, manifested in these contradictory judgments, is after all illusory’ "
From what I can tell, and I'll admit I'm unfamiliar with Sidgwick, this paragraph is a bit unclear. The first line says, "preferring rational egoism over utilitarianism", but the paragraph seems to be about how rational egoism is as reasonable as utilitarianism. While the end effect is the same, it ends up with a disconcerting paragraph, and I'd suggest rewriting it. Not doing it myself in case I'm misinterpreting the information provided. L.cash.m (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear paragraph 

message: I've just completed a major clean up of the article.  I've added references and made it not just about Ayn Rand's philosophy.  Please keep in mind that Rand uses the term "rational egoism" for her specific view. But, on standard usage among philosophers and others, her view is the conjunction of both ethical egoism and rational egoism.  That is, she holds that it is both moral and rational to act self-interestedly. (For more on that, see the "Ayn Rand issues" section below.) Also, please continue the standard citing format of providing the reference in the "References and further reading section" and then uses the "ref" tag in the article for making the citation. 
Overall, the article could still use some clean up and expansion, though. For example, I would think that more on David Gauthier would be called for. - Jaymay (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: I've adopted this page, and will expand it. Please feel free to help out or leave comments or suggestions. I will appreciate everything.--Connor K. 19:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding 

message: I'm removing the tag, I rewrote the entire thing, and cited my sources. Please let me know if you disagree.--Connor K. 22:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: This exhibits itself in politics, because rational government would be the least restrictive while protecting everyone's right to life, liberty and property, and forbidding the initiation of force by anyone against anyone.
Sounds to me like that's Rand's opinion- it's certainly not indisputable fact. So, it needs a qualifier.--AdamGomaa 18:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why I wrote it under "Ayn Rand's Version". If it needs more, please let me know.-- ¢² Connor K.   23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick comment

message: In diplomatic, political and military terms, this situation is known, generally, as 'divide and conquer' which takes full and dependable advantage of the conflicting self-interests of the opposing allied parties group's individual members to overcome the allied group's collective interest.
I don't know if this is important in the article "Rational Egoism". In my opinion, this part is more important in the "Prisoner's Dilemma" article, and not in this particular one. Can comeone explain why it is needed in this article?-- ¢² Connor K.   23:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have recieved no comment, so I am going to remove it. If there is a problem, please discuss it on this page.-- ¢² Connor K.   20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does This Belong in the Article?

message: There is no sources referenced in this entire section. Please, JQ, place citations, otherwise it seems like original research (because it is definately not common sense). I understand that more is to come, but the citations are important.-- ¢² Connor K.   22:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. JQ 10:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much-- ¢² Connor K.   12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rational egoism in the social sciences

message: "Scott Aaronson notes that the likelihood of one vote being decisive is on the order of the square root of the number of voters" is complete garbage. Aside from the misuse of the word order,the square root of any number larger than one is also larger than one which makes this statement completely nonsensical.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.144.146.48 (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probability nonsense 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rational egoism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929090734/http://www.cs.csbsju.edu/~lziegler/redblack.html to http://www.cs.csbsju.edu/~lziegler/redblack.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified