Preferable to whom? Obviously you could think about whether they are preferable to yourself. I’m against the notion that there is such as thing as “preferable” to no one in particular.
Preferable to people in general. I don’t think no one in particular means no one. When people set speed limits on roads they are for no one in particular, but it seems reasonable to assume people don’t want to die in car accidents and legislate accordingly.
Hmm, I don’t. I see egoism as an alternative ethical framework, rather than as non-ethical.
I know that egoism is technically an ethical framework, but I don’t see how it could ever get meaningful rules to come out of it that I think we’d agree we’d want as a society. It would be hard to even come up with rules like “You shouldn’t murder others” if your starting point is your own ego and maximizing your own self interest. But I don’t know much about egoism so I am probably missing something here.
I wouldn’t say speed limits are for no one in particular; I’d say they are for everyone in general, because they are a case where a preference (not dying in car accidents) is universal. But many preferences are not universal.
I know that egoism is technically an ethical framework, but I don’t see how it could ever get meaningful rules to come out of it that I think we’d agree we’d want as a society. It would be hard to even come up with rules like “You shouldn’t murder others” if your starting point is your own ego and maximizing your own self interest.
Thanks… I would like to write more about this sometime. As a starting point, think through in vivid detail what would actually happen to you and your life if you committed murder. Would things go well for you after that? Does it seem like a path to happiness and success in life? Would you advise a friend to do it? If not, then I think you have egoistic reasons against murder.
Preferable to people in general. I don’t think no one in particular means no one. When people set speed limits on roads they are for no one in particular, but it seems reasonable to assume people don’t want to die in car accidents and legislate accordingly.
I know that egoism is technically an ethical framework, but I don’t see how it could ever get meaningful rules to come out of it that I think we’d agree we’d want as a society. It would be hard to even come up with rules like “You shouldn’t murder others” if your starting point is your own ego and maximizing your own self interest. But I don’t know much about egoism so I am probably missing something here.
I wouldn’t say speed limits are for no one in particular; I’d say they are for everyone in general, because they are a case where a preference (not dying in car accidents) is universal. But many preferences are not universal.
Thanks… I would like to write more about this sometime. As a starting point, think through in vivid detail what would actually happen to you and your life if you committed murder. Would things go well for you after that? Does it seem like a path to happiness and success in life? Would you advise a friend to do it? If not, then I think you have egoistic reasons against murder.