Stuart Rachels

 

Stuart Rachels is a professor of ethics that has updated his father's (the late James Rachels) ethics primer. This book, revised in 2012, is The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Seventh Edition. Rachels, from Page 76 to Page 81, lays out three arguments against ethical egoism. The first argument, laid out on Pages 76 and 77 goes as follows: "The Argument That Ethical Egoism Endorses Wickedness. Consider these wicked actions, taken from various newspapers stories: To make more money, a pharmacist filled prescriptions for cancer patients with watered-down drugs . . . A nurse raped two patients while they were unconscious . . ." 

My response: Yes, these were cruel, wicked, selfish acts. I would argue that selfishness, especially when cruel, wicked or abusive, is far more common among collectivists than among individualists, though there are selfish cruel individualists. I would also argue that every story Rachels carried of wicked, selfish acts were wicked. Other acts are kind, neutral or virtuous. It may be more pertinent and accurate to describe an apparently vicious selfish act as it is, as blameworthy, without attributing its malefactor the motives of self-interest or other-interest. Besides, the cruelty of true believers in a mass movement, or among those committing the worst kind of crimes against humanity are the most violent, barbaric acts that people can and have done to others, and all these perpetrators are selfless and motivated by group-interest.

 Let me quote Rachels further: "Suppose that someone could actually benefit by doing such things. Wouldn't Ethical Egoism have to approve of such actions?" 

My response: When cruel, dishonest, vicious or violent acts are committed by others, even when the evildoers gains personally, this cannot be consistent with the brand of ethical egoism that I prescribe to. I generally define ethical egoism is the pursuit of one's enlightened self-interest. I would define enlightened as acting consistently and reasonably so that one's action uplift oneself without hurting others. The Mother and Father are Ethical Individualists and Ethical Individuators, and they are the authors to spiritual and moral goodness. We are made in their image, and likeness and are honored to serve them as accomplished individuators. With rights that they naturally grant us, come concomitant responsibilities. We are to take good care of ourselves. We cannot take good care of ourselves unless we are kind and respectful to others, or at least do not deprive them of life, liberty, property or happiness without grave need. If we hurt others, we hurt ourselves. If we are kind to others, we are kind to ourselves. We should pursue our own interests first and foremost, but the needs of others need consideration too. What is good for the self is good for the community. What is good for the community is good for the self. And these statements should be implementable in everyday life if people discuss, compromise and are reasonable so that the enlightened self-interest of all, most of the time, can be met without damaging the needs of the community, or of neighbors. 

 Rachels continues laying out the argument that such selfish actions committed above might disfavor ethical egoism: "This seems like enough to discredit the doctrine. However, this objection might be unfair to Ethical Egoism, because in saying these actions are wicked, it assumes a nonegoistic conception of wickedness. Thus, some philosophers have tried to show that there are deeper logical problems with Ethical Egoism. The following argument is typical of such proposals." 

 My response: Rachels does not seem to dismiss this ethical argument as baseless because it assumes a nonegoistic conception of wickedness. He does not say so, but it is well known in religious and ethical circles that individualism is considered selfish and the source of wickedness and sin in the world. These behaviors are condemned as the source of malevolent suffering in the world. Like Ayn Rand I submit that virtue is selfishness or self-interest over all, and that selflessness and collectivist living are selfish and vicious. Nonetheless, we need not worry about criticism such selfish behaviors listed above by Rachels as anything but selfish and wicked (which they are), whether or not the sinner and criminal is self-interested or selfish while being other-interested. 

 

 On Page 77 and 78, Rachels presents his second argument against Ethical Egoism: "The Argument That Ethical Egoism Is Logically Inconsistent. In his book The Moral Point of View (1958), Kurt Baier argues that Ethical Egoism cannot be correct, on purely logical grounds. Baier thinks that the theory leads to contradictions. If this is true, the Ethical Egoism is indeed mistaken, for no theory can be true if it contradicts itself."

 

 My response is that logically inconsistency may be built into almost any axiom or theory, that Aristotelian logic is not the only logic at work in the universe, that the law of contradiction is true most of the time, but logically inconsistency may be true part of the time, and that is how the universe works, that the exception proves the rule. I do not know if Ethical Egoism leads to contradictions, but it might, and it likely would not matter too much if it did. All theories that are true, would still be true mostly, once it was discovered how it contradicted itself. 

 

Let me quote Rachels again: "Suppose, Baier says, two people are running for president. Let call them 'D' and 'R', to stand for 'Democrats' and 'Republicans.' Because it would be in D's interest to win, it would be in D's interest to kill R. From this it follows, on Ethical Egoism, that D ought to kill R--it is D's moral duty to do so. But it is also true that it is in R's interest to stay alive. From this it follows that R ought to stop D from killing her--that is R's duty. How here's the problem. When R protects herself from D, her act is both wrong and not wrong--wrong because it prevents D from doing his duty, and not wrong because it is in R's best interests. But one and the same act cannot be both morally wrong and not morally wrong." 

 My response: It is in D's interest to win, but he must do so by honorable, or moral means--he must play fair. That is his best interest, not murdering a political rival to remove the competition. Such a horrendously immoral act is only D's self-interest in some sick, selfish way. So acting would devastate R and D himself. It is his self-interested duty not to harm R, let alone justifying her assassination. It is R's duty not to allow D or anyone to harm her. It is right for her to prevent him from hurting her, and it is right for her to do her duty. There is no logical inconsistency here embedded. Any moral act cannot be purely logically inconsistent--that it can be morally wrong and not morally wrong. That reading is absurd and false, but some modest logical inconsistency, that the same act is mostly morally wrong and a little bit right is true more than false, and meaningful in a complex, tricky-to-read world. But that is how this universe seems to be constituted. 

Let me quote Rachels again: "Does this argument refute Ethical Egoism? At first gland, it seems persuasive. However, it is complicated, so we need to set it out with each step individually identified. The we will be in a better position to evaluate it . . ."

My response: Rachels, the backer of logical consistency and Aristotle's law of noncontradiction, would accept that, were Baier or any critic able to show how the theory of Ethical Egoism is self-contradictory, then Rachels would quickly and decisively reject that theory as false and to be discarded. I would not be that quick to dismiss a working and workable moral theory like Ethical Egoism. Rachels below will go another route: he lays out Baier' criticism as plausible but defeated by one extraneous line that Baier added. If that line is removed from Baier's argument, then the theory of Ethical Egoism is shown to be laid out in a logically consistent way, so Baier's attack thus fails. 

 

 Rachels has several lines of Baier's argument that I will cite and then remark upon: "(1) Suppose it is each person's duty to do what is in his own best interest. (8) But no act can be wrong and not wrong; that is a contradiction. (9) Therefore, the assumption with which we started--that it is each person's duty to do what is in his own best interest--cannot be true." 

My response: (1) It is primarily each person's duty to do what is his own best interest, but his secondary and minority moral duty is to care for others, or at least ensure that his pursuit of his best interest does not arbitrarily overrule their pursuit of their own best interest. Where clashes occur, and they frequently will, the parties need to discuss in good faith, and find a way to compromise where possible so that it is a win-win situation for both. Also, what is one's own best interest requires explaining. One's own best interest is that action or actions that elevate the needs of God, the angels, oneself, others and the community. Any action that does not elevate the self first,  or others secondarily is an immoral interest that it is the agent's duty not to pursue. D murdering R can never be D's moral duty. Now I will contradict myself: there are times when a complete lack of logical inconsistency will be the nature state of a pet theory. At other times, the logical inconsistency built into that theory will be slight, and perhaps modifying, eliminating or replacing but one premise in the syllogism is enough to clear up criticisms of logical inconsistency. At other times the logical inconsistency will be so glaring as to likely destroy the argument, or if the proposed theory is hopelessly, logically inconsistent, the theory may have to be discarded. 

 Let me quote Rachels once more: " Thus we need not reject Ethical Egoism. Instead, we could simply reject this additional premise and thereby avoid the contradiction. That is surely what an Ethical Egoist would do, for it is always wrong to prevent someone from doing his duty. He would say, instead, that whether one ought to prevent someone from doing his duty depends entirely on whether it would be to one's own advantage to do so. Regardless of whether we like this idea, it is as least what the Ethical Egoist would say. And so, this attempt to convict the egoist of self-contradiction fails." 

 My response: If someone's duty was loving towards God, himself and others, then his fulfilling his duty would be a noble calling that an understanding neighbor should not obviate. If the agent was fill with selfishness, rage, envy, hate, malice and trickery, then his definition of his duty and self-interest might require opposition. To prevent another from doing his misguided duty would be salubrious to the interest of all, including the frustrated agent planning a cruel, wicked condemned duty. If someone doing her duty is morally good as duty and enlightened self-interest, then that agent doing her duty should not be interfered with, period whether it is to the advantage of onlookers or not.

 

 Now we come to Rachel's 3rd argument: "The Argument That Ethical Egosim is Unacceptably Arbitrary. This argument may refute Ethical Egoism. It is at least the deepest of the arguments we'll consider, because it tries to explain why the interests of other people should matter to us. But before presenting this argument, we need to look at a general point about moral values."

 My response: For a theory to be arbitrary it must possess internally innate unpredictable, whimsical triggers for the person to do an about-face, to act illogically, even crazily. Just persons are more logical, consistent and predictable, not swayed by passions, bribes, flattery or corruption. I do not see this arbitrariness must at work in individualists because individualists, on average, are more rational and logical than are collectivists, joiners or group-oriented people that are far more emotional, fickle and illogical than are individuators. If Ethical Egoism is the value system of choice for individuators, it cannot be that it is arbitrary. Instead, altruist ethics will be whimsical, subjective and arbitrary. Dictators are notorious for being arbitrary, moody wielders of un-derserved, congregated power. It might be argued that they are the most selfish of villainous individualists, and, in a way, they are, but I am more inclined to see them as kings of the heap, and that heap is populated by millions of people.

They are not individualists but the un-elected leaders of the pack. Their unhealthy hierarchical society is quite groupist. Their arbitrariness is also fed by their unjust, excessive personal power that sickens and rots them out. A presupposition for individuators is that theirs would be a rather classless society of upper middle-class people whose wealth and power relationships would be rather decentralized. Where power is balanced and dispersed, the citizens tend to be individualist, rational, sensible and scrupulously fair and square in dealing with others--nothing arbitrary about them. As an individuator, an anarchist/supercitizen in a constitutional republic, I do not need it explained to me why the interests of others should matter to me. They do, but my own interests are my duty to work towards, so they take priority. Allowing others, the power and freedom to do their own thing is respecting their interests in the most loving way that I can imagine.

 Rachels continues: "There is a whole family of moral values that have this in common. They divide people into groups and say that the interests of some groups count more than the interests of other groups. Racism is the most conspicuous example. Racists divide people into groups according to race and assign greater importance to the well-being of one race than to the well-being of other races. All forms of discrimination work like this--anti-Semitism, nationalism, sexism, ageism, and so on. People in the sway of such attitudes will think, in effect, 'My race counts for more,' or 'Those who believe in my religion count for more,' or 'My country counts for more,' and so on."

 My response: Stephen Hicks, Dennis Prager, Jordan Peterson, others and I all agree with Rachels here that the moral values of those that are racist, sexist, ageist, etc., use moral values as a cover for the most hateful, vile, mendacious, irrational moral assertions about their personal in-group versus despised out-groups is outrageous and to be condemned. Our contention would be that these moral values are really the immoral values of all the various tribal groups existing today and yesterday, and that their evil views are altruistic. Their pathological selfishness, elevating themselves against others and their neighbors is the source of evil in the world, and it is growing worse now that indentitarianism as practiced as cult worship by ideological postmodernists on the march to take over the world as ruled by one totalitarian Communist ruler takes shape. They are obsessed with others in such a sick, twisted way as to hollow out the individuality of insiders and outsiders. This is the malevolent side of groupism. 

Whites, males, Christians, Jews, capitalists, conservatives and the religious are hated out-groups, demonized and scapegoated, eventually slated for genocidal attack, gulags, converted into the oppressed classes and enslaved and made to suffer by their new masters. The coming Reign of the Beast will unleash altruism as never before witness, a reign of murder, terror and sadism, such as the world have never seen before. Ironically, Rachels is using racism and groupism as indicators of ingroup selfishness, and it is, but it is aligned, mostly I argue, with excessive altruism, not selfish individualism--though there is some of that. We need to return to the American liberal standard, pushed by Dr. Martin Luther King, that we should judge each American as an individual, by the content of his character, not the color of his skin. Those pushing CRT bigotry are promoting and fanning the flames of tribalism, not allowing the gentle West to further evolve into tolerant, peaceful, productive indviduator-anarchists, very high achievers, participants in a high civilization, all based, not just of Ethical Egoism, but Advance Ethical Egoism, or Mavellonialism. 

 Rachels continues: "Can such ideas be defended? Those who accept such views don't usually give arguments for them--racists for example, rarely try to offer a rational justification for racism. But suppose they did. What could they say?" 

 My response: No, such bigoted ideas cannot be defended. No sane, humane, rational individual or egoist, happy, contented and in love with himself, and through himself, in love with others and at peace with the world, could harbor such views antithetical to all that he is and stands for. Whenever one attacks, overpowers, enslaves, does violent against, oppresses or exploits another, that perverted relationship binds all involved together, and none are individualists and all are groupist beings, suffering, trapped and unhappy.

 Rachel continues: "There is a general principle that stands in the way of any such justification. Let's call it the Principle of Equal Treatment: We should treat people in the same way unless there is a good reason not to. For example, suppose we're considering whether we are considering to admit two students to law school. If both students graduated from college with honors and aced the entrance exam--if both are equally qualified--then it is merely arbitrary to admit one but not the other. However, if one graduated with honors and scored well on the admissions test while the other dropped out of college and never took the test, then it is acceptable to admit the first student but not the second." 

My response: This principle of equal treatment is moral and reasonable. But being courteous to everyone and treating everyone with respect, whether ingroup or outgroup members, and giving all equality of opportunity are i line with Rachels principle and that is laudable. When it comes to guaranteeing equality of outcomes or results, then this principle breaks down as the original protected classes become the new aristocracy and the old "privileged" (whether the preferential treatment for the privileged was actual or putative). We need to move away from group identity politics, quotas and body counts for every profession. Rather, we need to give each person from all groups the same liberating set of individuating values that makes their ascent to personal self-realization powerful, sustained and unstoppable should every or each person will to internalize these exceptional values. The Principle of Equal Treatment is to provide each person, extracted from his group affiliations, with the values to ignite in him the willful fire to succeed, and that is equality of outcome that is all anyone needs or deserves to end social justice whining about unequal treatment and the critical need for enforced, heavy-handed federal remedies to guide the career development of each budding young American citizen. As each young person maverizes, her liberty and power to be all that she can be, will lead to unequal outcomes, but that is set up by God and nature, not a cruel, unjust white patriarchy. Liberty trumps concerns for equity, inclusion and diversity, period. Rachels is correct in suggesting that the law student admitted to law school, that tried hard, being treated better and rewarded, while the unequally treated dropout that is in effect punished for nonperformance and goofing off--this unequal treatment is fair and reasonable, not unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary.

 Rachel continues: "At root, the Principle of Equal Treatment is a principle that requires fairness in our dealings with others: like cases should be treated alike, and unlike cases may be treated differently. Two points should be made about the principle. The first is that treat people in the same way does not always mean ensuring the same outcome for them. During the Vietnam War, young American men desperately wanted to avoid getting drafted into the armed services, and the government had to decide the order in which draft boards would call people up. In 1969, the first 'draft lottery' was televised to a national audience. Here is how it worked. The days of the year were written on 366 slips of paper (one slip for February 29) and inserted into blue plastic capsules. Those capsules were placed in a glass jar and mixed up. Then, one by one, the capsules were drawn. The first one was September 14--young men with that birthday, age 18-26, would be drafted first. The winners of the lottery, drawn last, were born on June 8. These young men never got drafted. In college dormitories, groups of students watched the drawings live, and it was easy to tell whose birthday had just come up--whoever just groaned or swore. Obviously, the outcomes were different: in the end, some people got drafted and others didn't. However, the process was fair. By giving everyone an equal chance, the government treated everyone in the same way." My response: I agree that the Principle of Equal Treatment requires fairness in our dealings with others: like cases should be treated alike, and unlike cases may be treated differently. Equal treatment up front or treating them fairly is equality of opportunity. Unequal outcomes are inevitable and is dependent on the individual competitor for how well she does nor not. Rachel continues: "A second point concerns the scope of the principle, or what situations it applies to. Suppose you are not going to use your ticket to the big game, so you give it to a friend. In doing so, you are treating your friend better than anyone else you could have given the ticket to. Does your action violate the Principle of Equal Treatment? Does it need justification? Moral philosophers disagree on this question. Some think that the principle does not apply to cases like this. The principle only applies in 'moral contexts,' and what you should do with your ticket is not important enough to count as a moral question. Others think that your action does require justification, and various justifications may be offered. Your action might be justified by the nature of friendship; or by the fact that it would be impossible for you to hold a lottery at the last minute for all the ticketless fans; or by the fact that you own the ticket, so you can do what you want with it. It doesn't matter from our point of view, whether the Principle of Equal Treatment applies only in so-called 'moral contexts.' Suffice it to say that everyone accepts the principle, under one interpretation or another. Everyone believes in treating people similarly, unless the facts demand otherwise." 

My response: I cannot disagree with Rachels here at all, for moral context is an issue for young people where moral choice might force the issue. 

 Rachel continues: "Let's now apply that principle to racism. Can a racist point to any differences between, say white people and black people that would justify treating them differently? In the past racists have sometime tried to do this by portraying blacks as lazy, unintelligent and threatening. In doing so, the racists show that even they accept the Principle of Equal Treatment--the point of such stereotypes is to supply the 'good reasons' needed to justify differences in treatment. If such accusations were true, then the differential treatment would be justified in some circumstances. But, of course, they are not true; there are no such differences between the races. Thus, racism is an arbitrary doctrine--it advocates treating people differently even though there are no good reasons to do so." 

My response: there are likely no significant differences between the races, black and white, or white and any other race, that would justify treating them differently. I would reject Rachels unstated assumption that it is whites that are racist; of course, all are born racist, favoring their ingroup against people of any other outgroup. With that in mind, all races and all groups need to be reminded not to treat outgroup members differently than ingroup members. It seems to be another unstated assumption at work here that it is individual egoists that are racist, when in fact racism is a group bias against outsiders. Group ethics are altruistic not egoistic, so racism grows out of altruist ethics. It would seem t me that racists do not accept the Principe of Equal Treatment. 

 Rachel continues: "Ethical Egoism is a moral theory of the same type. It advocates dividing the world into two categories--ourselves and everyone else--and it urges us to regard the interest of others in the first group a more important than those of those in the second group. But each of us can ask. What is the difference between me and everyone else that justifies me placing myself in this special category? Am I more intelligent? Are my accomplishments greater? Do I enjoy life more? Are my needs and abilities different from the needs and abilities of others? In short, what makes me so special? Failing an answer, it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine, in the same way that racism is arbitrary. Both doctrines violate the Principle of Equal Treatment"

 My response: It is Ethical Altruism that advocates dividing the world into categories--our group versus every other group--and it urges us to regard the interest of others as less important than the interest of our group--even though we are all pretty much created equal by God. Ethical Egoism, especially individuating types, urge that people cannot be divided into different groups--all are beloved children of God, made in God's image, as fellow maverizers with a universal call to all humans to answer God's call to exist and excel as living angels. Identity politics or identity ethics are irrelevant, a distraction wasting the time and efforts and talents of individuals not tending to their own business, allowing neighbors and others to get on with doing their own thing. Each individual is special, but so are all other individuals. It is Ethical Altruism that allows individuals to lie to themselves and fellow ingroup hanger-ons that only they are special, and that inferior, immoral persons from outside group are subhuman, so treating them unfairly and arbitrarily is not only moral but is the duty of the dominant oppressor group. None of this garbage thinking has anything remotely to do with Ethical Egoism. It is Ethical Altruists Adherents that repeatedly violate the Principle of Equal Treatment.

 Here is Rachels final paragraph on Ethical Egoism from Page 81 of his book: "Thus, we care about the interests of other people because their needs and desires are comparable to our own. Consider, one last time, the starving children we could feed by giving up some of our luxuries. Why should we care about them? We care about ourselves, of course--if we were starving we would do almost anything to get food. But what is the difference between us and them? Does hunger affect them any less? Are they less deserving than we are? If we can find no relevant difference between us and them, then we must admit that, if our needs should be met, so should theirs. This realization--that we are on par with one another--is the deepest reason why our morality must recognize the needs of others. And that is why, ultimately, Ethical Egoism fails as a moral theory."

 My response:: We should care about the needs and interests of the Mother and Father first. Then we should care about our personal needs and interests next, especially as advanced, sophisticated individuators. After that, we care about the needs and interests of others. By setting three levels of moral priority out here, before acknowledging the needs and interests of others, it is apparent that our needs and their needs are not comparable, at least in deciding what is looked after first. Now Maverizers love themselves, love God and other people. They would provide others and their children starving or not, with enough sustenance, but primarily with modest means, liberty, the right set of Mavellonialist values and an unshakable sense of personal confidence that 98% or more of those starving children, their parents, and people from any identity group can hardly fail to succeed. These gifts that those that maverize give to others are powerful gifts and tools for other individually latching on to these superior values, willing themselves to bootstrap themselves up out of poverty, sin, hunger, want, enslavement and group-living. Yes, their needs and interests are as important as ours are, but it is also their duty and responsibility as individual persons and maverizers, to get after it, and make sure those personal needs and interest as self-fulfilled by person attempt. That Enlightened Ethical Egoism/Mavellonialism is so effective at lifting all boats that, by comparison, Ethical Altruism is a failed moral theory. It still has its place at the table of discussion in blending moral theories, but it cannot lead humans forth for the rest of the 21st century.