Editing Ethical egoism (section)

==Justifications==
Philosopher [[James Rachels]], in an essay that takes as its title the theory's name, outlines the three arguments most commonly touted in its favor:<ref>He notes, however, that "the theory is asserted more often than it is argued for. Many of its supporters apparently think its truth is self-evident, so that arguments are not needed." (Rachels 2008, p. 534.)</ref>
* "The first argument," writes Rachels, "has several variations, each suggesting the same general point:<ref>That is, that regarding and pursuing the interests of others is a self-defeating policy. Rachels quotes Alexander Pope in support of this: "Thus God and nature formed the general frame/And bade self-love and social be the same."</ref>
** "Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual wants and needs. Moreover, each of us is uniquely placed to pursue those wants and needs effectively. At the same time, we know the desires and needs of others only imperfectly, and we are not well situated to pursue them. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that if we set out to be 'our brother's keeper,' we would often bungle the job and end up doing more mischief than good."<ref name="Rachels 2008, p. 534"/>
** To give charity to someone is to degrade them, implying as it does that they are reliant on such munificence and quite unable to look out for themselves. "That," reckons Rachels, "is why the recipients of 'charity' are so often resentful rather than appreciative."<ref>Rachels 2008, p. 534, where it is pointed out that, in the strictest egoistic terms, this is an inconsequential argument. Ethical egoism does not bother itself with how others receive charity, irrespective of how degraded it makes them feel. The same reasoning applies to the previous two bullets, which use self-interest as a means to the end of beneficence, rather than for its own purposes, as the theory would dictate.</ref>
* Altruism, ultimately, denies an individual's value and is therefore destructive both to society and its individual components, viewing life merely as a thing to be sacrificed. Philosopher [[Ayn Rand]] is quoted as writing that, "[i]f a man accepts the ethics of altruism, his first concern is not how to live his life but how to sacrifice it."<ref>Rachels 2008, p. 535, where this argument is attributed to [[Ayn Rand]], "a writer little heeded by professional philosophers but who nevertheless was enormously popular on college campuses in the 1960s and 1970s".</ref> Moreover, "[t]he basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification for his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue or value." Rather, she writes, "[t]he purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."<ref>Rand, Ayn, "Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World," ''Philosophy: Who Needs It'', p. 74; ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]'', 1957, Random House, p. 1014; "Faith and Force," p. 74.</ref>
* All of our commonly accepted moral duties, from doing no harm unto others to speaking always the truth to keeping promises, are rooted in the one fundamental principle of self-interest.
* It has been observed, however, that the very act of eating (especially, when there are others starving in the world) is such an act of self-interested discrimination. Ethical egoists such as Rand who readily acknowledge the (conditional) value of others to an individual, and who readily endorse empathy for others, have argued the exact reverse from Rachels, that it is altruism which discriminates: "If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, then why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others?"<ref>Rand, Ayn, ''Atlas Shrugged'', 1957, Random House.</ref> It is therefore altruism which is an arbitrary position, according to Rand.