Assertion: ethical egoism | /r/HasProperty | true
Facets:
Source sentences:
text: If ethical egoism is true, that appears to imply that psychological egoism is false: there would be no point to arguing that we ought to do what we must do by nature.
text: But there is nothing wrong with it if ethical egoism is true.
text: So, ethical egoism may be true, but this type of argument does not support it because it presupposes caring for others for their own sake, not simply because it is in my self-interest.
text: Thus, if Ethical Egoism is true, there must be some important difference between myself and others to justify treating my own interests as important, and everyone else's as completely unimportant.
text: Another general criticism is that if ethical egoism is true and I ought only to serve my own interests, then it seems that I’m not entitled to make any kind of moral
text: If ethical egoism is true, then psychological egoism is pointless
text: If Ethical Egoism is true then it becomes morally correct to hurt others when you can gain from it, just so long as you can get away with it.
text: If ethical egoism is true, not only can you permissibly take the wallet and rob someone, you must: not doing so would be wrong, since these crimes are in your self-interest.
text: It’s worthwhile, however, to note that if psychological egoism were true (and we always did what we believe to be in our own interest), and ethical egoism were true (and so we must do what’s in our best self-interest, or try)
text: If ethical egoism is true, then I should regard the interests of others as having