Rational Egoism: Only selfishness makes sense?

Have you ever had a boss that takes all the credit for what you do? Maybe you stay because you feel guilty about leaving your co-workers or maybe you feel you should remain loyal to the company that hired you. But, does this make sense? Maybe looking out for yourself is the only rational option. Rational Egoism is the view that the only way to make a rational choice is to choose whatever maximizes your own benefit. Does it make sense to put the benefit of others' before our own or is the only way to be rational by looking out for our own interests? Watch to find out!

The Phiosurfer’s Classroom “Rational

Video: Are all our choices selfish?

[goosegod]

I haven't found anything that makes more sense and is more practical that objectivism. Everything else has too many contradictions.

[gopstore]

I would recommend Yaron Brook to expand this concept economically

[noway]

Imo there are two problems with rational egoism as a philosophical doctrine and in practical application.

The first problem is that simply saying that acting in self interest is the only rational choice doesn't really provide any guideline for decision making nor is it in any way predictive of decision making.

What a specific individual decides is within their self-interest is both subject to change and not objective.

What I consider to be in my self interest is based upon my personal experiences and the severity (or ease) of certain factors that effect my life, which are different for different people.

Take the example of the bad poker player vs one who is on a winning streak. Poker involves a high level of luck (odds), which is a constant for every player, but also skill in prediction and response, which is variable for every player. Still the luck factor greatly outweighs the skill factor.

Regardless of the fact that a string of bad luck can cancel out any skills, the winning poker player's self interested choices will be based upon his experience of consistantly winning. And regardless of his skill, the player on the losing streak's self interested choices will be based upon his experience of losing.

So despite the fact that they are playing the same game, facing the same odds, and may even have at or near the same playing level, their self-interested choices will be very different based upon their differing experiences. And that's only assuming that they calculate risk vs reward in the same way, which is definitely not a given.

There's also the temporal issue. My perception of my self interest changes from day-to-day. When I am 20 I may not feel that it is in my self interest to put part of my income into social security. I don't get any benefit until I am 65 and I might not even live that long. Plus I have 45 years until then during which I could win the lottery, or work and potentially succeed in becoming a millionaire and not need SS. My self interested opinion on the subject will very likely change when I am 35, 45 or 55 depending on what is going on in my life.
The question of whether or not I voluntarily choose to put into SS when I am 20 is not dictated by whether or not I am acting in self interest but how my values and experiences shape how I define my self interest.

If my experiences and values lead me to believe that it is a very good idea to plan for my future at 65, that I will be unlikely to be able to maintain myself without SS at 65, and that I am likely to live past 65, then the self-interested choice would be to put into SS.

But if my experiences and values don't support even one of these factors, it would be just as rational to not choose SS out of self interest.

Philosophically, the idea of rational self-interest is too vague to form the basis of a philosophical system. The term itself, even if you put the word rational in front of it, is too shifting to create a common starting point for any sort of ethical philosophy or system.

Simply saying that all people act from self-interest or that self-interest is the only rational justification for actions doesn't lead anywhere or form any real guidance for how we should behave. It is a pat conclusion, not a philosophical starting point.

My second problem with rational egoists is based solely upon what I've seen. In my experience, rational egoists aren't very careful.
I've worked with several self proclaimed rational egoist and I have to say that they rarely double check their work or place the required effort into anything that they don't immediately recognize a direct interest in.

I think it is because the look mostly inwards when it comes to judging the quality of their work and not outwards to how their work measures up to scrutiny.

People love to believe that they are harder on themselves than anyone else is on them, but that just isn't true especially when it comes to being careful and sweating the details.

We are less likely to wear helmets than we are to insist that our teammates do. When we cook for others we use better ingredients than when we cook for ourselves, and our homes are cleanest right before people visit.

The rational egoists I've worked with are often satisfied when their work meets their own personal standards instead of paying attention to what the rest of the team has been repeatedly telling them is required for the job. Then they grumble that the team is wrong for not being immediately satisfied with their work.

They may be talented, but that talent only respects their personal criticism or outside criticism that largely echos their own. So getting useful work product out of them is like pulling teeth!

I've met too many rational egoist prima donnas to see it as a viable philosophy.