Editing Ethical egoism (section)

==Criticism==
It has been argued that extreme ethical egoism is self-defeating. Faced with a situation of limited resources, egoists would consume as much of the resource as they could, making the overall situation worse for everybody. Egoists may respond that if the situation becomes worse for everybody, that would include the egoist, so it is not, in fact, in their rational self-interest to take things to such extremes.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-252577/ethics| title = "Ethics"| date = 8 May 2024}} ''Britannica''</ref> However, the (unregulated) [[tragedy of the commons]] and the (one off) [[prisoner's dilemma]] are cases in which, on the one hand, it is rational for an individual to seek to take as much as possible ''even though'' that makes things worse for everybody, and on the other hand, those cases are not self-refuting since that behaviour remains rational ''even though'' it is ultimately self-defeating, i.e. self-defeating does not imply self-refuting. Egoists might respond that a tragedy of the commons, however, assumes some degree of public land. That is, a commons forbidding homesteading requires regulation. Thus, an argument against the tragedy of the commons, in this belief system, is fundamentally an argument for private property rights and the system that recognizes both property rights and rational self-interest—capitalism.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Block |first1=Walter |title=Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights |journal=[[Journal of Business Ethics]] |volume=17 |issue=16 |pages=1887–1899 |date=1998 |doi=10.1023/A:1005941908758 |issn=0167-4544 |jstor=25074025 |s2cid=17655955 }}</ref> More generally, egoists might say that an increasing respect for individual rights uniquely allows for increasing wealth creation and increasing usable resources despite a fixed amount of raw materials (e.g. the West pre-1776 versus post-1776, East versus West Germany, Hong Kong versus mainland China, North versus South Korea, etc.).<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/ |title= The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment (1996) | author=Julian Simon |access-date=2014-03-14 }}</ref>

It is not clear how to apply a private ownership model to many examples of "commons", however. Examples include large fisheries, the atmosphere and the ocean.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/July-August%202008/ostrom-full.html| title = " The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources"}} ''Environment Magazine''</ref><ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.dummies.com/education/science/environmental-science/ten-real-life-examples-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/| title = "Ten Real-life Examples of the Tragedy of the Commons"}} ''Environmental Science for Dummies''</ref>

Some perhaps decisive problems with ethical egoism have been pointed out.

One is that an ethical egoist would not want ethical egoism to be universalized: as it would be in the egoist's best self-interest if others acted altruistically towards them, they wouldn't want them to act egoistically; however, that is what they consider to be morally binding. Their moral principles would demand of others not to follow them, which can be considered self-defeating and leads to the question: "How can ethical egoism be considered morally binding if its advocates do not want it to be universally applied?"<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/glossary/ethical-egoism/|title=Ethical Egoism|date=August 26, 2017|location=[[Kansas City, Missouri]]|work=[[Seven Pillars Institute]]|access-date=2020-03-20}}</ref>

Another objection (e.g. by James Rachels) states that the distinction ethical egoism makes between "yourself" and "the rest" – demanding to view the interests of "yourself" as more important – is arbitrary, as no justification for it can be offered; considering that the merits and desires of "the rest" are comparable to those of "yourself" while lacking a justifiable distinction, Rachels concludes that "the rest" should be given the same moral consideration as "yourself".<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{cite book|first=James|last=Rachels|title=The Elements of Moral Philosophy|edition=4th|location=[[Boston]]|publisher=McGraw-Hill|year=2003|page=89|isbn=0071198768|oclc=984391934}}</ref>

[[Derek Parfit]] argues against ethical egoism in the book ''[[Reasons and Persons]]''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Parfit |first=Derek |url=https://archive.org/details/trent_0116300637661/page/n5/mode/2up |title=Reasons and persons |date=1984 |isbn=0-19-824615-3 |location=Oxford [Oxfordshire] |oclc=9827659}}</ref> Parfit argues that ethical egoism is collectively self-defeating due to the prisoner's dilemma. Parfit also poses thought experiments such as the [[teletransportation paradox]], which challenge the idea of an objective [[future self]] and a continuous personal identity.

[[Daniel Kolak]] argues that the entire concepts of the "self" and the "ego" are incoherent. In his book ''I am You'', Kolak uses the terms "closed individualism", "empty individualism", and "[[open individualism]]" to describe three contrasting philosophical views of the self.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kolak |first=Daniel |url=https://digitalphysics.ru/pdf/Kaminskii_A_V/Kolak_I_Am_You.pdf |title=I Am You: The Metaphysical Foundations for Global Ethics |date=2007-11-03 |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |isbn=978-1-4020-3014-7 |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240906163443/https://digitalphysics.ru/pdf/Kaminskii_A_V/Kolak_I_Am_You.pdf |archive-date=2024-09-06 |url-status=live}}</ref> Kolak argues that closed individualism, the idea that one's personal identity consist of a line persisting from moment to moment, is incoherent, and there is no basis for the belief that one is the "same" person from moment to moment. Empty individualism is the idea that personal identity exists, but one's identity only exists as a "time slice" existing for an infinitesimally small amount of time. Open individualism is the view advocated by Kolak, in which the self in reality does not actually exist at all, similar to [[anattā]] in Buddhist philosophy. Thus, according to open individualism, it could be argued that ethical egoism is incoherent, since the ego in its entirety is an illusion.