Category: Ayn Rand

One reason that they died that early could possibly be that they don’t receive as much as they need to survive due to them living in the Home of the Useless. Another reason could be that they had nothing to do. Besides of course, looking back on their life full of hard work, sadness, and loneliness. Things such as medicine, technology, diets, etc., were not available in the time period that this took place. Just like how in the Dark Ages when people did not live very long due to the simple fact that they could not provide the medicine for themselves. So basically, you could consider this time period the Dark Ages of the Future. Another reason could be that a man’s life would be shortened because of their mental health status. In the book it says, “There are Fraternity 2-5503, a quiet boy with wise, kind eyes, who cry suddenly, without reason, during day or night, and their body shakes with sobs they cannot explain. There are Solidarity 9-6347, who are a bright youth, without fear in the day; but they scream in their sleep…’Help us!’ ‘Help us!” Anyone with common sense would see that there could be something wrong with Fraternity 2-5503. This could be shown to be a possible sign of depression which could lead to suicide as well as shorten a person’s lifespan. It also, to Equality, may be short because he has only seen a select few people to live to be that age.

Anthem is a heroic and galvanizing story regarding the triumph of the individual’s freelance spirit. Even supposing, at the top of the novel, Equality is greatly outnumbered, and fashionable society lies in ruins, it’s a story of liberation and hope—not despair. All people wish to form the globe a much better place for future generations. sadly, despite one’s best efforts, choices area unit generally created that may ultimately be damaging to the globe and its inhabitants. Ayn Rand’s novel Anthem actually depicts the globe of the longer term as a bleak one, full of crooked collectivism and also the loss of individuality. However, all hope isn’t lost for this civilization. Rand’s novel may be a story of liberation, not despair, as a result of by the top of the novel, potentialities for the come back to a a lot of free society are created by one man determined to offer his descendants a fighting likelihood. maybe the foremost calming truth is that there area unit still folks that haven’t been conquered by the repressing government; folks willing to fight for his or her individuality. additionally, Equality 7-2521 rediscovers electricity, a vital step in building a a lot of contemporary world. Finally, Equality 7-2521 has developed plans for the longer term that, if disbursed, would found a gaggle of individuals dedicated to operating toward a a lot of aggregation. every of those aspects of the novel exhibits hope for the longer term of society, even within the not so good times.

As Balance 7-2521 rests on the greenery inside the Unfamiliar Backwoods, he endures a snapshot of thwarted expectation and sadness, yet the agony of his ongoing separation from his general public powers an acknowledgment of his lie to himself. He has revealed to himself that he adores his glass box in view of its potential for society’s advantage, in any case, as a general rule, he esteems it since it was the result of his own inventiveness and reasonability and in light of the fact that it is in this manner an augmentation of his self. This comprehension of his own inspirations is fundamental for him to proceed with his disclosure of Objectivist and nonconformist standards, as he should cut all ties with the bogus statutes of cooperation so as to really comprehend what satisfies him. His general public has educated him that he should be cheerful in light of the fact that he serves others, however he and other men are just genuinely upbeat when they can fill in as they wish for themselves.This section denotes another progression in the advancement of Fairness 7-2521’s break with his collectivist society, as he starts to overlook the regular dismissal of mindfulness. Previously, he has never especially thought about his own body, however since he has made the glass box, he invests wholeheartedly in his achievement and partners the forces of his brain with the forces of his body. In Rand’s view, the festival of the body is much the same as the festival of the individual, and Fairness 7-2521 portrays the electrical wire as an augmentation of his self. He starts to adore his creation not due to its latent capacity use for other people but since its reality is a dedication to his capacity as an individual, despite the fact that he has not yet explained this as far as he could tell.

On the planet Ayn Rand portrays in Song of praise, people have no character of their own. They exist just for the network. There is no ‘I’ (the word actually doesn’t exist), however just ‘the incomparable WE.’ Anything that may enable people to build up their very own personality – regardless of whether it be a name, a mirror, or the main individual solitary – is smothered. The story’s plot follows the fundamental character, Equity 7-2521 , as he gradually finds his very own way of life as a person. Slowly he moves from speculation himself as an individual from the ‘we’ to considering himself an ‘I’ and esteeming his very own uniqueness. Right when she made Tune out of dedication, Ayn Rand hadn’t yet totally developed the undeniable perspective of Objectivism for which she later got known. Immense quantities of the nuts and bolts, regardless, are starting at now impacting everything in the novella, especially the central idea of vanity, the conviction that every individual should wholeheartedly look for after their own one of a kind satisfaction with no sentiment of being focused on others. Rand considers the to be individual as the most significant, most sanctified being known to humanity. These musings and more are brought out in the last pages of Melody of dedication which could be read more like a statement than a question. (a request to the human sentiment of self).

Ayn Rand portrays characters that settle on significant decisions; her characters select from choices accessible to them — huge and once in a while life-and-death issues. Uniformity 7-2521 is the most evident model, however not by any means the only character in the book to settle on such decisions. He decides to ponder about the Unspeakable Word when he could (and, as indicated by this general public, should) choose not to. He decides to hide both the presence of the passage and his investigations, declining to bow to the Chambers’ will. He decides not to tell his captors where he has been however they torment him. He chooses Universal 4-8818 and the Brilliant One for his underwear from all citizenry. He decides to escape into the wild instead of give his light and his life to the Committees. In his steadfast ability to assume responsibility for his life, he is the most convincing case of this ability to pick. The negative characters settle on decisions also. The most evident model is the one made by the World Chamber of Researchers when Equity 7-2521 presents the electric light. In the wake of recuperating from their dread, they perceive the worth the light has. They realize the creation will make bankrupt the recently created light industry and will disturb the plans of the World Gatherings, who will presently need to consolidate the new development into society. It isn’t that the Researchers don’t see the light’s worth. The inquiry is whether they need to exploit its worth. The options before them are obviously clear: power, innovative advancement, and free idea; or candles, mechanical backwardness, and thought control. They settle on their decision. They select more than candles over electric light; they pick concealment and autocracy over autonomy and political opportunity. They pick crude stagnation over advancement. They pick dinginess and wretchedness over thriving. They pick a similar way of congruity they have followed for their entire lives instead of an unfamiliar course of autonomous reasoning. The Researchers have the ability to settle on significant options. They pick dependently on their desire for

Immanuel Kant has been one of the more famous and influential philosophers from the last few centuries. He has influenced the minds of other philosophers from the past or present with his ideas in philosophy. His major contributions in philosophy have been to the topics of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics to name just a few. He has been one of the most famous philosophers to debate and let his beliefs of morality be known. One of his main beliefs that he argued as a philosopher were his theories based on moral values and morality. Kant believed that morality must be based on reason and reason alone. He wanted to purify morality of all self-interest as that would make it impure, thus making the actions of that person, not virtuous. He also explained that morality was related to the topic of duty and deontology. Deontology is the belief that morality is a concept of duty. This means that an action can have moral worth only if one intended to do their duty without any other motives involved. Kant also believed that morality consisted solely of rational principles and that everyone had a decision of whether to follow those principles.

However, Hume, Aristotle and Rousseau, three other very famous philosophers believed that the meaning of morality and reason was different from what Kant said. Kant believed that reason had a practical side that would tell us what to and how to do it. Hume believed that reason was related to knowledge, truth, and falsity. Rousseau argued that morality was universal and common to everyone. Aristotle debated this by stating that morality must be taught within our societies and that our morals are influenced by our own individual opinions and beliefs. Kant went on further to argue that our actions should be performed by us as a sense of duty and with morality to ourselves and not as an inclination. By inclination, he meant that our personal feelings, desires, ambitions, emotions, etc., should not get in the way of performing what is either morally right or wrong. These four philosophers had varying opinions about the definition of morality and reason.

Another important belief in Kant’s morality theory is that the only thing in the world that is good has a good will. He explains how if a person has good intentions then that makes that person morally good depending on the decisions they made. He says how a good will has to do with rational principles and that those principles are moral laws, and our action determines whether we’re a good person. In addition, he also describes how that more than one factor contribute to the circumstances that someone is in and that their upbringing and heredity has more to do with their values. Some of these factors include whether they are wealthy or poor, whether they are smart or dumb, whether they are courageous or not, etc, . This belief of Kant relates to Aristotle’s one where he explains how that the good for man must be found in that man’s own nature and that everyone has different natures and morals.

Aristotle makes a distinction between a person that does their duty because they have to and a person that does that duty for their own personal interest. An example provided in our textbook is one where a grocer may refuse to cheat his customers of their money because he knows to not do it. This instance makes the grocer a good example of what it is like to be morally worthy. If he had decided to cheat his customers, then that would him a cheater along with him being an immoral person. Kant discusses how we have a duty to ourselves to be happy and that our happiness is necessary to fulfill our duties. He then makes a distinction between practical and pathological love. He describes practical love as a duty whereas he believes that pathological love is the emotion of love. Kant also describes how morality and duty are related to each other and how people should try to be as moral as possible in order to be considered a good person.

Kant’s central argument for the duty of everyone is known as the “universal conformity to law”. This argument includes a rule that everyone is familiar with, treat others the way you want to be treated. His words were “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. He goes on to describe two types of imperatives which are commands. The first one was categorical imperatives, these are universal, unconditional commands. These are the commands that either say do this or do not do this. The other one was hypothetical imperatives, these are particular, conditional commands. Hypothetical imperatives commands depend upon the certain circumstances that a person is in. For categorical, he says that there are universal laws that tell us what to do and what not to do. He describes how all of our decisions are either categorical or hypothetical, most likely categorical since that one is more commonly used today.

However, many people have criticized Kant’s theory about morality and beliefs saying that his beliefs could not work for every single situation that happens in our lives. Using the example given, if a poor man steals food from a wealthy man then the poor man should not be punished even if he made the wrong choice. There is no way that Kant’s beliefs in morality could be applied to everything that happens in our life. Some people debated saying that morality and duty has nothing to do with our personal choices, desires, ambitions, and feelings. That is why many philosophers came up with their own views of morality and duty. One such person was an ethical egoist, Ayn Rand, who came up with her own terms and definitions to use instead of Kant’s.

Another major rule that all philosophers believe is that only if actions are motivated by a concern for other people’s interest, then we can call those actions truly moral. However, most people do not think about the interests of other people and philosophers along with everyone else call those people selfish if they act this way. Two terms that were used by egoist philosophers like Ayn Rand are psychological egoism and ethical egoism. The word selfishness is used to describe a person with an egoist point of view. There could be several reasons as to why someone has a egoist view including that they either do not care about anyone else, they only care about themselves or maybe they genuinely are interested in the well being of others.

Psychological egoism is the belief that people act for their own self-interest, even when it seems like they are doing it for the benefit of another person. This form of egoism affirms that our individual psychology has to do with how we act and how we don’t act. The actions taken by someone could either be influenced by an ulterior motive or that person’s selfishness. Selfishness is acting in one owns interest without the concern for anyone else that might be involved. In the textbook, Tara Smith explains Ayn Rand’s idea of egoism, and she describes egoism as being related to more than just morals and morality. She also explains how human beings survive only if they think about themselves and no one else. Furthermore, she explains how egoism could be confusing to some people and that most people mix up the two.

Ethical egoism is somewhat related to the principles of psychological egoism with some of its own unique rules. Ethical egoism is the view that even though we are concerned for others and sometimes act in their interests, we must always act in our own interest. Compared to psychological egoism, this view asserts that we should always do what is in our best interests before thinking about others. She also describes how ethical egoism is when a person acts, his actions are used to benefit his own self-interest. Smith also says how morality involves egoism in all of its principles. She also describes how egoism and altruism are two separate topics and that they have been compared against each other. Altruism and egoism do have some similarities however they also have some differences in their principles.

Altruism is the view that someone should act for the sake of the interest of anyone else involved. However, there are several levels within the view of altruism. One such level is when someone feels morally obligated to do something or to help someone without thinking about what the consequences will be for them. Another one could be where someone puts their family or friend’s interests over theirs. In this view, someone puts another person’s interests over their own, proving that person could be a morally worthy person. In the other views, the person involved does not care or think about a second person and whether that decision will affect them, either negatively or positively.

Furthermore, psychological and ethical altruism are two other types of altruism that may be present in human beings. Psychological altruism is when people’s natural act for thinking about each other. Ethical altruism is acting with the thought of other’s interests in mind. However, philosophers and other scholars have debated whether psychological altruism is actually present in human beings. There is no way to prove if psychological altruism is present in someone’s mind and that is why it is so hugely debated between philosophers. Ethical altruism might be in use every day as people sometimes think of others and how their decisions will affect everyone involved.

Two famous ancient famous Chinese philosophers, Mencius and Xunzi, debated on whether human beings are naturally selfish or evil. Mencius and Xunzi had a difference in opinion about the debate and whether humans are born selfish. Mencius argued that humans are born and have a sense of compassion for each other without any influences. Xunzi disagreed and said that human beings are born naturally selfish He also said that certain actions and practices must be taken in order to fix that selfishness within everyone. Mencius argues by saying that everyone has some sort of compassion within in them and that not everyone was as selfish as Xunzi was implying. He provides several examples where a person with compassion could be in a situation where they help someone else if they needed their help. Mencius goes on to state that the reason that humans are so willing to learn new things is because our nature is actually good. He says that a community where compassion and benevolence are morally good and that everyone has a chance to achieve this if they wish to. In addition, Mencius’ view is completely innocent as he believes that everyone has compassion in them and that not everyone is selfish.

Xunzi disagreed and debated Mencius’ view as he believed that people are naturally born selfish and that selfishness stays with all of us throughout our lives. He states that the nature of all people are evil and that they gain their goodness with the actions they take in their lifetime. He believed in replacing the selfishness in a person with virtue instead. Everything Mencius believed, Xunzi believed the exact opposite, in their debate about nature. He believed that being biased and evil is in the nature of humans. He also describes how a person could be considered good and not evil through the actions they perform and the decisions they make. Xunzi states that if a person’s original nature is good then that means that person cannot be considered selfish unless they do something that is very evil. He argues saying that the nature of a person is very difficult to change and that it would take a considerate amount of time for them to change their nature.

Through all of these philosophers, it is easy to see how their opinions on morality and moral values differed. In addition, many of these philosophers seemed to believe that human beings only act in the interest of themselves without thinking about anyone else involved. Some philosophers such as Kant, Hume, Aristotle and Rousseau all had unique views on what morality meant to them and what principles were included in their definition for morality. Each philosopher had their own beliefs that they fought for to be recognized by other scholars. Through these philosophers, we were able to see what their beliefs and views were for morality, duty, deontology, categorical imperatives, hypothetical imperatives, psychological egoism, ethical egoism and selfishness. No matter how influential the philosopher was, the views of every philosopher differed on at least one topic and when they did, they had their own terms that they would use.

Ayn Rand stated in her essay ‘Causality versus Duty’: “God said: Take what you want, and pay for it”. As a student of IE, we are all aspiring a professional career, life-enhancing moments, relationships, and happiness in general. In my opinion, Rand’s moral model of objectivism is a necessary approach for our pursuit as a student. She explained in her essay that ‘God’ is actually the reality and “Take what you want” the values we have chosen. All the goals we have set for our future don’t come to us automatically. We have to work for them, in order to achieve them. Moreover, it means that we need a proper morality, so you should know what you want in life and how you can accomplish them. We also have to remember, that our principles are not subjective, rather factual requirements of our life, which means that they are given by nature. We are all complex human beings with specific needs. Our body, mind, as well as matter and spirit require different requirements. At the end, all of them derive together as a whole. But what does that exactly mean for us students?

The basic human needs are food, shelter, clothing and medicine. We are fortunately all provided with that. It becomes more complex if we talk about our spiritual values. The key is to reach an inner power of self-confidence and self-respect/love. Nowadays, we live in a world where individuality is hard to reach, because we are taught to live after specific sets of rules. Another important point is the political freedom, to be able to speak up and express the personal opinion.

Rand specified, that we have to stick to one important value, which is reason. Reason is an absolute and our only knowledge, which gives us the opportunity to have a basic living. Coherently, rationality is a matter of our principles. Rand’s “Take what you want” refers to the rational judgement, in order to reach our goals and lifetime happiness. This approach is really similar to Friedrich Nietzsche’s master morality. He describes that master morality evaluates actions based on good and bad consequences. Therefore, rational decision making is an important value, just as it was defined by Rand. In order to create values, you have to decide if it is useful or not, and therefore usefulness is goodness. The other way around, everything “what is harmful to you is harmful in itself”. It is the nobility for a strong will, which makes it possible to achieve your goals. The essence in master morality besides nobility is also open-mindedness, trust, and self-worth. Here we can also identify a similar approach to Rand’s objectivism. After being aware of the fact how these two philosophers defined morality, we can definitely find reasonable approaches for us students. As Rand describes the law of causality “..Pay for it”, means that we have to work hard if we want to achieve our goals. That means, if we want to achieve good grades, we have to put work in it and study. The same with relationships, being open-minded and honest is important to keep them up. Especially here at IE we strive to be an open community, because we all have different nationalities, backgrounds and grew up in different cultures.

So in order to sustain this community, we have to be aware of the things we do, use reason as an absolute and decide with our rationality if they are good or bad.

As members of society, we gravitate toward certain decision-making based on our emotions as well as our surroundings. Physiological egoism argues that the reason we do all things is for ourselves. That is, everything we do is out of self-interest. On the other hand, ethical egoism makes a moral claim about how life ought to be lived. “According to ethical egoists, a person is always justified in doing whatever is in his own interests, regardless of the effect on others’ (Cahn, 72). Each of these theories poses issues dependent from person to person, and also may contradict the theory absolutist ethics in which all actions are intrinsically right and wrong. I will explore these two philosophical theories and how they pertain to our decision making and what problems and challenges each of these theories face.

It is difficult to argue that at least some of the time, people act out according to their own interest; making decisions that will suit them best. Physiological egoism goes a step further and will argue that all actions are motivated in this way. Even if it may seem that the person is making a sacrifice for others, in some way or another they are benefiting as well, which is the driving force behind their decision. A simple example would be someone saving another person from a burning building. Though they are risking their own life, the physiological egoist would argue that weather this person is conscious of the reasoning or not, they are driven by their own benefit such as gaining a heroic feeling. In the context of this theory, this is just how we as human beings are, aware or not.

Acting in your own self-interest should not be confused with acting selfishly. These are two different concepts. The text easily explains the difference between the two. You wouldn’t think of me as selfish if I am feeling ill and need to see a doctor. However, that can be seen as acting in my own self-interest (Cahn, 76). Selfish acts may be considered to have a negative effect on those around you. If you are doing something that only benefits you, but does not hurt anyone else, people may not consider that as selfishness. So, when physiological egoism argues the driving force of our decisions in through self-interest, we are not to confuse that with selfishness.

Physiological egoism has its flaws. Some may argue that the driving force behind their decision making is simply, doing the right thing regardless if there is any personal gain or not. Say a soldier has an opportunity to throw himself on a grenade to save many lives of those around him. Maybe he did so because he couldn’t bear to live with the guilt he would carry if he didn’t. This is an argument a physiological egoist would make. Though this is a possible explanation, there is no way this is can be true for all cases. If you were faced with the dilemma in which you must sacrifice yourself for the sake of many others, our modern society here in America would argue that it is the “right” thing to do. It makes you ask the question, what makes my life better than those of lives around me?

Ethical egoism believes that your decisions are justified based off of what it is you believe is right for you. “A person is under no obligation to do anything except what is in his own interest’ (Cahn, 77). Many people may believe that we as people are entitled to make decisions based on what we want for ourselves and that is the most important driving factor. However, this can lead to issues of itself. Is this justifying a murder because the murderer thought it was a good idea to take the life of another individual? Though the ethical egoist argument can get radical, most people don’t gain any self-interest by impeding on the freedoms of others. A major proponent of this philosophy is Ayn Rand. “Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, begins by embracing the basic fact that existence exists. Reality is, and in the quest to live we must discover reality’s nature and learn to act successfully in it”. This leads to personal responsibility of the individual. If each of us make decisions based on our own self-interests, society would be thriving because each individual will ensure they are doing what they have to do to ensure that their lives contain their needs and wants.

It is important to understand that ethical egoism should not necessarily focus on you wants and feelings. It is more important to focus on a reasoned assessment that will serve you long-term interests best. Some of your pleasures and desires may align with this, but that is certainly not always the case. Because of the competitive nature of this world, we do have the responsibility in taking action in providing for ourselves. If we don’t look out for ourselves, how can we expect anyone else to? Though I can see the importance in this and can agree, Ayn Rand’s views on this can get extreme. This is where the theory starts to become faulty. “The purpose of morality to teach you, not suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and love’ (Rand). While all that sounds good and dandy at face value. Let’s go back to the example used above about the person who jumped in front of the grenade to save others. Ayn would obviously be against this because it is not of that person’s greatest interest. It ends their life. But why do we still feel torn as to what the “right thing to do” is? The theory of ethical egoism would seem more effective when everyone is on the same page with this. In reality, this is not the case.

The biggest issue I face with ethical egoism is the narrow view it takes with the factors going on around us in life. What about our friends, family, children, and pets? If we orient all the decision-makings around the individual, the deep connections we have with each other may go ignored. It ignored cross cultures and communities in which I can argue are paramount to overall happiness. To me, happiness and community are paramount to sustaining a prosperous life.

Even after exploring both of these theories, how can we decipher what is correct or not. That’s what makes this complicated. Though we can take arguments from both and disagree or agree with them, the world in which we live does not accept one or the other. We cannot accept ethical egoism in full if we accept physiological egoism. Because as I stated above, making decisions based on your self-interest doesn’t necessarily mean you gain from that decision at the moment. For example, I don’t necessarily love writing this paper right now. But I am doing it to obtain my degree, which will help sustain my future.

The biggest takeaway from this conversation about egoism, both physiological and ethical is to really grasp the relationship that you have with yourself and those around you. Because there is no way in knowing what theory holds more merit. I feel that both of these theories are on a spectrum that is up for interpretation. What is the relationship you have with yourself? What is the relationship you have with your community? When faced with decisions, what is the most important reasoning in which you base your decision making off of? Yes, the common denominator here is yourself, but does that mean that your self-interest is behind your decisions? I don’t think that is true in all cases. Certainly, if I lived during the World War II and found myself in concentration camps trying to save those being starved, I don’t imagine that would be because it’s going to make me feel good about myself. It’s because if I were in that position, I would desperately want that help from another individual as well.

Physiological egoism is a strong argument, but I don’t believe it is how all people are, so I discredit the theory as a whole. However, I do think that many decisions are made out of self-interest. I also discredit ethical egoism as a whole as well. Because I find it necessary to look out for those around you and incorporate service and community in your life. Sure there are some personal benefits from doing that, but what should be most important is the affect those decisions have on those you are serving.

Egoism in philosophical ethics is having a certain motivation or undertaking an activity that is best suited for you but helps the other person as well, therefore it doesn’t make you look selfish; however, it actually is. Egoism is a normative perspective theory, and it is cleared up by two versions. Version one is individual ethical egoism, this portrays having your self-interest only and a couple of others but mostly just focusing on you. This is why it’s called an individual. Version two is universal egoism, meaning all. This is where everybody should pay special mind to their own advantage, however, there are other individuals on the planet thus, you need to imagine that it benefits them excessively yet just on the off chance that it benefits you more. At the end of the day, it’s discussing the popular expression, ‘do something for me and I’ll return the favor.’

One of countless philosophers that first introduced ethical egoism was, Henry Sidgwick. The book, ‘Methods of Ethics’ was one that Henry composed and many others. Henry uncovered three methods of ethics. The first one is egoism; the following was intuitionism and third utilitarianism. He also mentioned how intuition was additionally constructed on morality.

Ayn Rand is likewise a standout amongst the most persuasive journalists and thinkers. Ayn believed egoism was good, and altruism was sinful. According to Ayn altruism was, “the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal”. She argues that “the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being”. For this purpose, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue. She also supposed ethical egoism was moral philosophy, and it’s never going away. For instance, it is our leverage to keep promises or others may break it, the same goes for lying and being hurtful to others. This fails as a moral theory according to other philosophers because we should care about the interests of others as their needs are the same as us. Why would it be any different?

Friedrich Nietzsche is another example. Friedrich and Rand both approve on altruism that it is bad, and Rand learned a great amount from Nietzsche. They, however, conflicted a lot about what the self is. Both pondered about what its main benefits are, whether self-interests are shared, and whether if it was the highest moral value. Nietzsche had two proposals that contradicted itself with egoism. The first one is, “egoism is universal and natural since all organisms have the will to power, but not all are equal, so altruism is the power strategy pursued by the weak to achieve their egoism. Next is, egoism which is not universal since some organisms are physiologically sick beyond repair; this causes a will to nothingness and a consequent moral nihilism, so altruism is the will to the nothingness of the weak” (Hicks, 289).

There are relatively a lot of differences between various ‘egoism’. There are three usages, that was quickly referenced above. The individual form is where everyone should undertake in my self-interest. The personal form is, I should act in my self-interest, and I don’t care what others do. Universal form is the last one, which states all human beings should constantly act in their own self-interest. This makes it a normative theory because this makes a claim about what one should do, rather than describes what one does do. It’s imperative to comment that neither type is ‘grander’ in any way to the others. Each has a different single mindedness and well suited to its aim. Nevertheless, there have been many opposition and heavy influences for this moral. To name a few, it has no real clarifications when it comes to a problem involving conflicts of interest, and it also goes alongside the principle of equality. Inconsistency as well happens, and it is unclear whose self-interest should be fulfilled. Nonetheless, if an action is done to benefit oneself, it is morally correct, however, if an action does not benefit your self-interest it is not morally correct. The finest pursuit of own selfish interests actually produces the best overall outcome for everyone. This is the thing that Ayn Rand recognizes the “value of individual life” that it is the definitive value for each individual. Furthermore, ethical egoism can’t effectively clarify why the individual self is superior to other people. While it stands, two reasons that some actions derived from self-interest are moral, ethical egoism does not effectively demonstrate that an action is moral because it is self-interested. Therefore, ethical egoism fails as a moral theory. “Egoists came from the Greek, ‘ego’ for ‘self’ or ‘I’” (Hicks, 254).

I consider myself not an egoist because when I think about an egoist, they are frequently described as selfish, untrustworthy, and a lot of other nasty things. This is, in fact, a stereotype. Others would acknowledge that being interested in your own personal good is simply defining selfishness. Having an understanding of the different types of egoism, one should know it is actually an ethical view of self-interest. I want to help others for the benefit of the world. The moral vain person isn’t worried about expanding the benefit of the general population in general, which is the essential meaning of utilitarianism. A person’s actions must not create well for others, only for themselves. Egoists have a strong value of what makes an action good which is that it is good for them. I wouldn’t want to help people as a career and be passionate about others and their emotions. Egoists make moral decisions, too. A genuine case of an extraordinary prideful person would be Adolf Hitler, and I’m nowhere like him. I don’t assume I’m superior to other people or prevalent. Not with standing, I think everyone is an egoist in today’s world. Ethical egoism advocates focusing on one’s self-interests and benefits all of society because society runs more efficiently with it. Social media run on me and mine, you have to express your opinion on everything. Another case would be when people try to impress or feel confident about their money, beauty, power, or knowledge then it means you are an egoist. I may not be an egoist, but I have done egoist things in the past. In the event that I owe cash to a friend and choose to pay the companion back, it’s not on the grounds that I need to but rather in light of the fact that it’s to my greatest advantage to pay my friend back along these lines, I don’t lose them. Another would be inviting someone to a movie or purchasing something that they want to see or buy because I don’t want to go alone, I would be thinking of my own personal matters first. Making a promise is one that I used to do a lot. Even if I make a promise to you, I have no obligation to you to keep the promise. I may have a duty to keep the promise, but it would only be a duty to myself. Egoists might act very humbly and focus on others since it’s to their greatest advantage to make individuals like them and need to treat them well. If you prefer to live as an ethical egoist, you will most likely miss out on the best experiences in life. Examples include the different forms of love, friendship, and wonder, that end all origins of self and self-interest. That’s why I’ve changed the way I was, some people can’t help it, but it’s also a choice.

My personal philosophy revolves around individualism and egoism. I am a very greedy and lustful person. I have an extreme passion for success, wealth, and most importantly, the accumulation of money. I act in my own self-interests because I feel that my life revolves around me; I should not be forced or guilted into satisfying the needs and wants of others. I am very selfish and that’s not a bad thing because I love and cherish my life more than anyone else’s, I am the master of my life, I put myself first, and I am the center of my universe. In contrast, this also means that I am serving the greater common good. I believe that individuals acting in their own interests serves the common good. Competition is needed for the world to thrive which relates to the philosophy of Adam Smith. But my philosophy is not about competition, it is about individualism and egoism which closely relates to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand illustrates the virtue of selfishness. Her philosophy teaches the disadvantages of altruism and the advantages of egoism. In philosophy, altruism is the selfless act of caring for others and looking out for everyone in society. God/s tell the individual what to do. “I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you visited me”. Everybody’s needs should be met which would require a lot of sacrifices from individuals. The subjective principle of ethics is the universal law and would reflect altruism, “If my actions were reflected upon everyone else then how would the world function?”. If a universal law is broken, then the whole structure of the law would fall. Ayn Rand consistently brings up a number of bad positions of altruism. One of which include the “Mystic religious orientation” where God/s tell you what to do. Mystic orientation is to forgive and pray for your enemies, not to just forgive your enemies but to ask God to be nice and better to them. This also includes the works of mercy; clothe the naked, feed the hungry, shelter those who need shelter. This looks paradoxical but there is no question in it because God wants you to do it. God has pretty high standards and if you’re meeting those standards, you’re not satisfying yourself, you’re doing what somebody else wants you to do, you’re meeting their demands and their desires. Ayn Rand says that this is not a good basis for ethics. She then says that when it comes to values, we have to look at life because it is one of the most basic things that we can think about. Unless you have life, you can’t have other values. Humans, animals, insects, and plants all have a means, and all gravitate towards survival. What makes humans different from other living things is our capacity, not just to precevie things, but to think about them. What makes us different from animals, insects, and plants is our reason and rationality.

What Ayn Rand calls selfishness is what philosophers would call egoism. Altruism is about others while egoism is about the self

Altruism (bad): care for others, god/s tell you what to do, pray for your enemies (that’s paradoxical), look out for everyone in society (social security, Medicare, medicate), everybody’s needs should to be met, a lot of sacrifices from individuals, subjective principal of ethics – everybody decides for themselves, not thinking things through, sloppy thinking

Egoism (good): self-interest, life – complexity of being and staying alive (reason, rational), Reason and rational as a choice (Man has no automatic code of survival, No automatic sense of action, no automatic sense of values), Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates Material provided by our senses. it’s a faculty that we have to exercise by choice it’s not an automatic thing. we have to make a choice whether or not to use our minds and if not, then maybe we get our ideas from somewhere else and somebody else tells us that this is the right thing to do and we say OK it sounds good. Thinking is not an automatic function in any hour were issue of his life a person is free to think or to convey that effort. The act of focusing consciousness is volitional, we can focus it for we can un-focus it and drift into an unconscious or semi-conscious state. Own interest, think things through and get them right,

Rational egoism: trader – bases their relationships with other people on giving in order to get/exchange, exchange or swap things, an economic transaction. The principles of justice the rational interest of human beings don’t clash its only when they want to get something they don’t really deserve. Comment by Ashur Jasmine:

The trader is asking for what is deserved and only gets what is deserved. The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference by one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values. The time, money, or effort one gives should be proportionate to the value of one’s own happiness. Being affectionate, loving, caring, and helping attributes to one’s own happiness and that is the exchange being made. Egoism is not “get whatever you can, screw everybody else”. It’s based on the notion of exchange