Four Elements

 

When I advocate egoist-individualist moral code as opposed to proposing altruist-collectivist morality, I am really suggesting that each moral code is comprise of four elements that are diametrically opposed by their opposite number (elements) of the opposing moral code. This is not exhaustive but illustrative for the reader.

 

There are—not included here--anticipated exceptions, complications, and qualifications to include, but with my laying it out as two moral opposing systems with antithetical elements belonging to each system, I am trying to help the reader capture how these two moral codes influence each other, how they interact or clash.

 

Here are the four elements of my egoist-individualist code: individual identity, individual rights, egoist ethics (self-interest) and individual-living.

 

Here are the four opposing elements of altruist-collectivist moral codes: group identity, group rights, altruist ethics (other-interest) and group-living.

 

If one is Ayn Rand, the monochromatic, all-or-none thinker and purist, then her black-and-white objective and necessary categories, pushes her to conclude the only the four elements—or something like them--listed under the egoist-individual code are to be followed if one is to lead a moral life, with few or no exceptions.

 

If one is a Georg Hegel or Karl Marx, radical totalists and ideological purists of a rigorous communist or Statist approach--The Dictator/Cause/Party/State are everything and the individual is nothing at all.), only the four elements—or something like them—that I list as the elements comprising their altruist-collectivist morality, only these elements are to be lived by and up to if one would be a good comrade, or person devoted to the state that one will self-sacrifice for the sake of its perpetuation or advancement.

 

Now I like the law of moderation as an existential, moral, spiritual, worldly and otherworldly principle that guides or should guide human decision-making.

 

What does this mean practically? It indicates that the logical, moral and sensible stance to take between egoist and altruist ethical standards, each with their diametrically opposed four element, is to blend them together—in the middle there is virtue.

 

I do not believe the virtuous or moderate blend is exactly 50% on one side and 50% (50-50), but may be more like 60%-40%, or 45%-55%, and this can be debated.

 

I speak of my rational egoism as the primary, moral and moderate ethical position to hold, but critically important still is the minor, secondary and moderated moral stance of altruism.

 

Rand needed to include more of altruism in her ethical positioning, but she was not built that way at all.

 

Egoism is a bit more rational, moderate, or virtuous than is altruism (more passionate, immoderate, and vice-prone), so that is why altruism is for me the minor ethical position to hold.

 

In times of non-emergency, not requiring that one give up one’s life in traffic to save a toddler, waddling out into oncoming cars, then one is to pursue one’s self-interest more than not, but service to others and the community deserve some of one’s time and self-sacrifice too.