What is Egoism?

[Emile Armand]

I tried to read more about Stirner and his ideas but I don't really understand... What is Egoism all about?

[danyboy27]

I tried to read more about Stirner and his ideas but I don't really understand... What is Egoism all about?

me of course!

[Nolan]

ME! I'm the BEST! BEGONE INFERIOR WORM!

[Zanthorus]

I tried to read more about Stirner and his ideas but I don't really understand... What is Egoism all about?

Stirner was basically the logical conclusion of the "Young Hegelians". He believed that people had become trapped by illusions of "god", "morality", "justice" etc (He even believed that "humanity" was an alienating idea for the individual) and that the individual would have to overcome these various illusions ("Spooks in the head") and live solely for their own sake. He also believed that when enough people had knocked the spooks out of their head and everyone had become an egoist that the state would collapse and be replaced by the "union of egoists".

Stirner was very influential on american individualist anarchism. Originally most of the american individualists believed in "natural rights" however after Benjamin Tucker discovered and translated "The Ego and his Own" he became an egoist and tried to reformulate his anarchism on the basis of his egoism. He moderately famously came to the conclusion that a mother was justified in throwing her baby into the fire since the baby couldn't live by itself and was technically the mothers property.

Egoism has been influential on some brands of anarcho-capitalism, although some like the Rothbardians reject egoism because it denies the existence of natural rights.

It should be noted that Stirner would never have called himself an anarchist. In fact he criticised Proudhon's "what is property" because he thought that it was nonsense to say that stealing is wrong and hence it was irrelevant wether or not property was theft. It's quite likely that Stirner would've rejected anarchism as being another "spook in the head". In fact there is an article by Georges Palante (One of stirner's followers) which argues exactly that: http://www.marxists.org/archive/palante/1909/individualism.htm

There is also a school of thought called "egoist communism" which bases itself on the belief that the best way to achieve maximum satisfaction for all individuals is through the implementation of communism. There is a rather odd pamphlet by a group called "For Ourselves" which expresses this point of view:

http://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything

[Emile Armand]

So Egoism isn't a form of Anarchism then? Is it even a political ideology at all? If so is it even left wing? It sounds like Egoism is more of a philosophy then a political ideology.

[Zanthorus]

So Egoism isn't a form of Anarchism then? Is it even a political ideology at all? If so is it even left wing? It sounds like Egoism is more of a philosophy then a political ideology.

Some political currents have tried to fuse egoism and anarchism but the results are usually confused. I would say that any real egoist would reject politics as such and focus only on manipulating whatever environment they find themselves in to suit their own ends. You're probably correct in thinking that it is more philosophy than political theory.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

There are three forms of egoism I am aware of:

Psychological Egoism: This theory claims that humans do everything for their own self-interest. When I help the elderly cross the street, I do it for the reputation benefits I gain. I don't care about helping the elderly cross the street.

This is been shown false scientifically. People enjoy helping others. Some egoists claims that because you get "enjoyment" out of helping people, you're still an egoist. This is false. This is a confusion of how the definitions operate. I know this intimately because I used to consider myself an egoist, but I was making that confusion.

An egoist does not enjoy helping people at all. Any enjoyment that results is with respect to how it will benefit them. Psychological egoism claims this is true, and it's an irrefutable argument. Since we are unable to remove "unselfish acts" from the agent performing them, the egoist can always make up an elaborate story of why the person was actually being selfish. Since there is no evidence that egoism is true, on face value, it's best to dismiss it with a wave of the hand. Credible ethicists don't deal with egoism these days - at least very few do (I can think of none).

Rational Egoism: This claims it is rational to do what is in your self-interest. If murdering children makes you happy, you should do it assuming you can avoid any consequences that counteract the benefits. While this seems repugnant, our feelings aren't really arguments against this view.

There are multiple critiques of this view. One is that we have reason to care for the interests of others because we know, like us, that they experience pain and feel pleasure. This is a view James Rachels has, and his point is a critique of all forms of egoism. Whether or not that is a sufficient argument is debatable. I used to think it wasn't, and I'm more sympathetic to it now. However, it seems to be missing important details.

The other critique is related to personal identity and an ethicist I admire, Derek Parfit. Our belief that our future selves are "us" is a mistake. We will never experience the pleasure of our future, but a person in that period of time will. Consequently, we have no more reason to act in the interests of our future than in the future of others.

A critique of that was something I considered. It is essentially maximizing pleasure at the immediate time. However, it gets a bit ridiculous. My first instinct is to move towards my genitals. Then I realize time is more specific than that. Maybe moving my finger slightly to the right indefinitely is the most enjoyable task I can perform - until I am starving. But even then moving towards food requires me to justify giving the food to a future self. It seems to be a difficult view to maintain.

Ethical Egoism: We are ethically obligated to pursue our own interests. The critiques of rational egoism also apply to this. There are also skeptical arguments about ethical egoism. Even if it's rational to be selfish, there is no ethics involved, so to speak.

***

Although I value reason over emotion in philosophy, in many cases, I discarded my belief in all three of this viewpoints on the basis of emotion. In a hypothetical scenario, I could get away with rape. I might even be able to remove my memories of the event and the memories of the victim. It still seems to be a rather terrible consequence if a philosophy would advocate such a horrendous rights violation.

However, I was also confusing egoism. I thought it was compatible with feeling guilty, and guilt makes it "not selfish" to avoid raping people. Once I became aware that this was a confusion, I dismissed the philosophy rather quickly out of a detest for rape.

That left me with what's basically Emotivism. Ethics are an internal sentiment, so to speak. I still like some parts of this view, but I ended up adopting a variety of moral philosophies at one point or another. I change my opinions regularly in an attempt to discover what is the most rational view. So far communism has stuck around longer than most of my beliefs!