Exam 57: Louis P Pojman: Egoism and Altruism: A Critique of Ayn Rand

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -Pojman maintains that the main argument for ethical egoism

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -According to Pojman, Rand's argument for the virtue of selfishness seems flawed by the fallacy of

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -Ethical egoism implies that in pursuing one's interests one ought always to do what one wants to do.

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -According to Pojman, universal ethical egoism is the theory that everyone should always

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -Pojman thinks that the argument from counterintuitive consequences is unsound.

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -Pojman accuses Rand of committing the fallacy of false dilemma.

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -Pojman rejects ethical egoism.

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -Pojman thinks that ethical egoism conflicts with our considered moral judgments.

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -Pojman asserts that the paradox of egoism is that to reach the goal of egoism, one must

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -Pojman holds that the primitive notion of reciprocity seems necessary in a world like ours.

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -Ethical egoism requires you to avoid actions that help others.

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -Pojman says that the publicity argument actually supports Rand's position.

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -According to Pojman, personal egoism is a description of

In this essay Pojman makes a case against the kind of ethical egoism defended by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand. Appealing to the paradox of egoism, he distinguishes between two levels of thinking about the self. On a higher (tier 2) level, a person legitimately concerns him- or herself with prospects for his or her happiness, but, in so reflecting, he or she rationally concludes that the best way to realize happiness on an everyday (tier 1) level is to develop a strong (nonegoistic) disposition toward altruism. Limited, reciprocal altruism offers us the best chance for happiness. -Mackie argues that the real name for Suckers is "Christian."