Category Archives: Ethical Egoism

Rotterdam Port Automated Vehicle by Monika BockovaShareShare

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Whatsapp

Mail

Or

Luk Likavan takes us on a rich and satisfying philosophical journey. From Agamben's apparatus, through Hegel's positive religion (in contemporary robes), on to its materialization in Graeber's fetishes, the author reads the smart objects that are at the basis of the smart city paradigm as fetishes of sorts. In this perspective, it is necessary to redefine the autonomy of humans through an act of reverse prostheticization: what position should humans occupy in the technosphere? And what kind of relationships are emerging, or are being consolidated, between us (humans) and them (objects)? By accepting a collective vision of intelligence as a product of human and non-human data, it is possible to move away from the notion of fetish, towards an anti-narcissistic condition that sees humans as one of the entities having agency in a universe that has moved far beyond the phenomenological.

For the 2019 Shenzhen Biennale of UrbanismArchitecture (UABB), titled "Urban Interactions," (21 December 2019-8 March 2020) ArchDaily is working with the curators of the "Eyes of the City" section to stimulate a discussion on how new technologies might impact architecture and urban life. The contribution below is part of a series of scientific essays selected through the Eyes of the City call for papers, launched in preparation of the exhibitions: international scholars were asked to send their reflection in reaction to the statement by the curators Carlo Ratti Associati, Politecnico di Torino and SCUT, which you can read here.

1. The saints are coming

In cities across Italy, something quite unusual has been happening in 2004 the figure of a new holy person known as San Precario occurred here: the patron saint of precarious, casualised, sessional, intermittent, temporary, flexible, project, freelance and fractional workers.[1] San Precario begins as a secular and ironic appropriation of religious cults, typical for many Catholic countries, but at the same time, it transcends its arbitrary, artificial origin: it becomes an effective tool to educate people around Italy about the poor conditions of the precarious workforce, to spread awareness of collective solidarity, and to mobilize workers in strikes and upheavals.[2] One can observe here a peculiar revival of religiosity a figure of the saint becomes a publicly recognized and effective mediator of the culture and politics. Awful enough to the secular mind, the saints are coming; painstakingly kept in quarantine far away from our everyday lives, these saints knock on the doors, invading our secular world.

However, it is important to note what kind of religiosity these saints bring about. Drawing from Giorgio Agambens notes on Hegel philosophy of religion, one can distinguish between natural religion and positive religion: While natural religion is concerned with the immediate and general relation of human with the divine, positive or historical religion encompasses the set of beliefs, rules, and rites that in a certain historical moment are externally imposed on an individual.[3] The positivity in the concept of positive religion denotes for Hegel those historical elements that condition philosophical thinking in a given epoch.[4] These historical elements are the set of institutions, of processes of subjectivation, and of rules in which power relations become concrete.[5] According to Agamben, the idea of positivity is then translated into the work of Michel Foucault as the notion of dispositif, i.e. an apparatus: anything that has in some way the capacity to capture, orient, determine, intercept, model, control, or secure the gestures, behaviors, opinions, or discourses of living beings.[6] Hence, while speaking about San Precario (and other saints), it is not that much a figure of hermetic mediation between God and the Church: it is on contrary a simple, earthly crystallization of new material-semiotic apparatuses of the positivities (or dispositifs) endemic to given socio-historical constellation, the becoming of yet another positive religion.

2. Fetishes are gods under the process of construction

The curious case of San Precario belongs to a very wide class of practices of social creativity, related to objects known to social anthropologists as fetishes. According to David Graeber, a fetish is a god under the process of construction[7] it is an object that serves as a singularity mediating and petrifying cultures. An invention of a fetish equals Graeber to an institution of a new practice, and thus it is an expression of social creativity, defined as the creation of new social forms and institutional arrangements.[8] There is a long philosophical and anthropological tradition of thinking about fetishism. One notable example is Karl Marxs concept of commodity fetishism,[9] which according to Graeber falls victim to a misreading of fetishism as the production of illusions, when [w]e create things, and then because we dont understand how we did it, we end up treating our own creations as if they had power over us.[10] Graeber believes that instead of seeing fetishism as a mode of alienation from products of our own creative activity (the Marxian approach), we should simply approach it as a very profane practice of the invention of new rules and social institutions mediated by objects. In this perspective, one arrives at a very simple understanding of fetishism as a design practice, where things we make in turn re-make us.

Cities are collective design objects: material concentrations and compressions of positive religion. They are the sites of deployment of Agambenian apparatuses, creating layered infrastructural settings constantly conditioning movements of bodies in space. They are also primordial sites of social creativity. However, with arrival of smart cities discourse, our usual understanding of the social collapses the smart urban objects (autonomous vehicles, robots, sensing surfaces, recording devices etc.) populate the social sphere in increasing numbers, rotating the social towards its more-than-human future. In this sense, a smart urban object becomes a fetish of the future an object that enters social relations, formatting these relations with its power to institute new rules. After all, it is exactly the capacity for self-determination or self-legislation that is a theoretical kernel of what we use to call autonomy.[11] Thus, thanks to smart cities, it might be clear that fetishism is a practice of conspiring the social realm with objects in the world, which has always been the case: culture and sociality inevitably involve objects that gain a certain degree of autonomy.

3. Autonomy and communal rationality

What is important to keep in mind is that fetishism involves dynamics of subject/object reversals the object is suddenly treated as an autonomous agent. Benjamin Bratton calls these dynamics reverse prostheticization, when the subject becomes an object, the self becomes substance, the body becomes metabolic reserve, food machines consume you.[12] In these uncanny reversals, we humans can gain an outside view on ourselves, following Reza Negarestanis work on the philosophy of artificial intelligence.[13] This outside view becomes a new stage of Hegelian communal self-reflection of humankind.[14] Throughout history, fetishes serve as instruments of this self-reflection, whether in the form of religion or in its other modalities, thus contributing to the institution of new types of communal rationality. As an example, consider the proliferation of technical objects that condition the way how we think in the 21st century our ways of accessing and processing information are rapidly formatted by platforms that navigate communal intelligence, such as search engines, online databases and so on. For this reason, one might claim that the history of rationality is technically mediated, and the project of artificial intelligence realized in the form of smart urban objects is a continuation of this history.

The stage in which we occur now marks a redistribution of rational competences, shifting its focus from humans to more-than-human agents. The advent of artificial intelligence reveals that we have always been surrounded by autonomous objects or fetishes, if you will working with us in the acts of thinking. As Matteo Pasquinelli says: Artificial intelligence is animism for the rich, we might say. Or alternatively: animism is a sort of artificial intelligence made in the absence of electricity.[15] In this process, we see how thinking itself has always been external to the human: we merely mediate thought, and we do so while surrounded by an ensemble of fetishes. This insight is central to the outside view on ourselves: we are only a part of a metabolic nexus of thinking.

4. Ethics of metabolic multitude

As autonomy becomes property of smart urban objects, we can simultaneously observe a slow take-off of an independent evolutionary trajectory of this technical ensemble, creating a kind of a general ecology of the technosphere, of which cities are intermediary articulations.[16] In this not-so-human version of the city-to-come, Paul Virilios vision of metabolic multitude and habitable circulation is enacted and updated[17] humans become not only temporary media of architectural innovation and urban development but of intelligence itself: intelligence which otherwise exists in many forms and genres, from mineral to biological, from sub-individual to collective. With the advent of this technosphere, questions related to when to treat ourselves as autonomous individuals, and when to approach our existence as a part of a larger torrential force-field, stands at the forefront of future ethics (and politics) of urban design. In a way, old modernist dilemmas are revived, while divested of the humanist teleology at their core ensembles of smart urban objects reveal that the condition of autonomy is to mobilize the inhuman in the human, echoing words of Jean-Franois Lyotard: What if human beings, in humanism's sense, were in the process of, constrained into, becoming inhuman (that's the first part)? And (the second part), what if what is 'proper' to humankind were to be inhabited by the inhuman?[18]

The process of becoming inhuman might have at least two results, and I hope for its latter version either we copy-paste existing urban borders and environmental injustices from architecture of built environment to digital infrastructures and protocols of smart urban objects, or we substitute this regime of governance by division of urban space for the regime of generic universality.[19] While the former simply stands for investing the mirror image of existing lines of division into the public realm a project which is already pursued in urban design the latter seeks to establish a lowest common denominator for sharing the urban realm. This denominator is not any kind of old ethical (or political) value, but the simple position in an abstract address space of an urban ecosystem. It does not strip the elements of a metabolic multitude of their value, but it makes their value relational and situated just as each biological species in the forest contributes to the general choreography of the forest as an ecosystem (metabolizing different products of those species related to them in their respective region of the network), the generic universality of urban space sees each genre of intelligence as valid input into communal rationality distributed over a manifold of agents and their modalities.[20] Here lies also an opportunity to learn from those ontological imaginations outside of the scope of Western modernity.

5. Non-narcissistic theory of alienation

Another productive aspect of this emergence of communal intelligence mediated by a technical ensemble of smart urban objects is related to an opportunity to highlight those alienations that can actually move us completely elsewhere outside of the confines of simple dialectics of fetishism, where the objects we produce simply mirror ourselves. Both Marxs and Graebers view on fetishism relies on these dialectics. For this reason, they both fall under the rubric of what I would call anarcissistic theory of fetishism. In the Greek myth of Narcissus, a young and beautiful male investigates his own mirror reflection on the surface of the pond, falls in love with this image and eventually falls into the pond. Yet, we might interpret this tale not only as a parable about self-congratulatory egoism, but also as a story about the discovery of a portal to the great outdoors of planetary reality the diagram of an escape of the human into the inhuman that Lyotards question provokes. The pond stands in such an interpretation for an abyss that lurks just beneath the safe space of things intimately mirroring ourselves. Falling into this abyss means entering a realm that in its general indifference towards human beings brings an opportunity to develop a sense of generic universality. Perhaps the assemblage of smart urban objects brings this challenge to our contemporary situation: a promise of transporting ourselves into a realm where we are not the phenomenological centre of the universe, but a collective of silent agents co-curating the torrents of the planetary matter and intelligent processes, contributing to epistemic diversity of the universe itself. A potential credo of future ethics and politics of urban design thus goes as follows: Woe to those who seek to model the complex reality of urban ecosystems by an image that privileges their endemic culture of intelligence and creativity. On the contrary, carefully mixing and aligning different cultures of intelligence in multistable assemblages is the premise of this design genre.

Endnotes

About the Author

Luk Likavan is a researcher and theorist, elaborating on topics of philosophy of technology and political ecology. He studied philosophy at Masaryk University (Brno), where he is currently concluding his PhD studies in environmental humanities, and sociology at Boazii University (Istanbul). As a researcher, he was based at Wirtschaftsuniversitt Wien (Vienna), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Hong Kong), and BAK, basis voor actuele kunst (Utrecht). He teaches at Center for Audiovisual Studies FAMU (Prague) and Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design (Moscow), where he also graduated from The New Normal education program in 2018.

"Urban Interactions": Bi-City Biennale of UrbanismArchitecture (Shenzhen) - 8th edition. Shenzhen, China

http://www.szhkbiennale.org.cn/

Opening in December, 2019 in Shenzhen, China, "Urban Interactions" is the 8th edition of the Bi-City Biennale of UrbanismArchitecture (UABB). The exhibition consists of two sections, namely Eyes of the City and Ascending City, which will explore the evolving relationship between urban space and technological innovation from different perspectives. The Eyes of the City" section features MIT professor and architect Carlo Ratti as Chief Curator and Politecnico di Torino-South China University of Technology as Academic Curator. The "Ascending City" section features Chinese academician Meng Jianmin and Italian art critic Fabio Cavallucci as Chief Curators.

"Eyes of The City" section

Chief Curator:Carlo Ratti.

Academic Curator: South China-Torino Lab (Politecnico di Torino - Michele Bonino; South China University of Technology - Sun Yimin)

Executive Curators:Daniele Belleri [CRA], Edoardo Bruno, Xu Haohao

Curator of the GBA Academy:Politecnico di Milano (Adalberto Del Bo)

"Ascending City" section

Chief Curators:Meng Jianmin, Fabio Cavallucci

Co-Curator:Science and Human Imagination Center of Southern University of Science and Technology (Wu Yan)

Executive Curators:Chen Qiufan, Manuela Lietti, Wang Kuan, Zhang Li

Read the rest here:

On the Mode of Existence of Smart Urban Object - ArchDaily

Ethical egoism is the acceptance of society for people to pursue their own self-interests. No one has an obligation to promote what anyone else tries to do because their personal views are the only thing that matters. That makes this theory prescriptive and normative in its application because it becomes concerned about how people behave.

It is essential to remember that the ethical version of egoism is different than the psychological form of it. The latter theory suggests that every action we take is ultimately with our self-interest in mind. That makes it more of a descriptive approach because that is a basic fact of human nature.

The argument for ethical egoism because famous in the poem The Fable of the Bees by Bernard Mandeville and The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Both works describe an environment where people who single-mindedly pursue personal gratification benefit society as a whole. The reason for this outcome is that individuals are more motivated to work hard when personal benefits come from the outcome.

1. Ethical egoism encourages self-awareness.If you can know yourself and what you need, then it is easier to stay productive in modern society. The benefits of having this trait in ones life include a higher level of emotional intelligence, greater listening and empathy skills, along with improved critical thinking. This combination of factors allows for better decisions to be made, which leads to stronger communication and better relationships.

Self-awareness enhances leadership capabilities so that your capacity for accomplishments becomes higher. You can have internal and external versions of this benefit, which involves how we see ourselves and how others see us.

2. There are more opportunities for personal improvement.If you focus on a path involving ethical egoism, then your self-interests become the top priority. Instead of striving to push others forward, youre working toward making yourself better in some way. There are six approaches that you can try with this advantage that can take your work to the next level, ranging from simple breathing exercises to delegating the work you hate to do to other people.

Everyone experiences this positive attribute of ethical egoism from a young age. You might be tempted to steal a candy bar from the store, but the external factor of getting into trouble with your parents or the police makes you decide to pursue greater needs instead. It is an approach that makes you think about your overall wellbeing first.

3. Everyone would have an opportunity to provide for themselves.Ethical egoism is an approach that says what you think or feel are the best motivators to keep you productive. Youre effectively the salesperson of your own life, earning what you believe is your full potential every day. It eliminates the idea of a safety net because the only person you can depend upon is yourself, but then society restructures itself so that every individual has opportunities to pursue their definition of success.

That doesnt mean we would eliminate poverty and hunger immediately by taking an approach that includes ethical egoism. Some people would choose to live a vagabond lifestyle where they would have few responsibilities placed on them. It does give each person a chance to take control of their lives so that they can do what they feel is right for themselves.

4. Ethical egoism allows people to implement self-care routines.When you start putting yourself first, then the first word in your vocabulary becomes no. That makes it a lot easier for you to begin working toward the goals you have in life because others are not directing your footsteps. When you eliminate the control of others, then it becomes easier to prioritize your to-do list each take. Knowing what tasks are the most essential to complete helps you to achieve a goal faster.

Ethical egoism promotes consistency in the facets of this advantage by encouraging people to build new habits. When you make a decision, then you stick to it. Youre conditioning others to accept you for who you are without judging them for being who they are.

5. No one can manipulate you when practicing ethical egoism.You become entirely immune to the idea of having someone take advantage of you when society practices ethical egoism. The people who use others to advance their personal agendas will no longer have the option to make others do favors for them that push their journey forward. Everyone will be taking that approach, so you stay in control of your circumstances at all times.

This advantage also means that others will no longer have the option to guilt you into taking actions that you dont want to do. Youre spending more time on the things in life that you enjoy doing.

6. It eliminates the autopilot approach that people take in life.Many people go through life without a cognitive awareness of their choices or themselves. This approach to life puts you on autopilot because youre allowing the routine to take control instead of your desires. If you have ever zoned out during your commute to or from work, then youve experienced this effect. Those routines can encompass years of your life without a specific direction beyond paying your bills or making enough money.

Ethical egoism pushes you toward a higher level of success. The people who find themselves stuck on autopilot tend to feel miserable and disengaged. Self-awareness is the cure that can clear your mind of the fog, making you feel like youve woken up from a long nightmare. Since society trains us on what our routines should be, a shift to ethical egoism could cause everyone to stop living in their routines.

7. Productivity would rise in society when ethical egoism is in control.When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in the 18th century, he suggested that when individuals pursue gratification of their insatiable desires single-mindedly, then they unintentionally benefit society as a whole. It is as if they are led by an invisible hand, as he put it in his work. The idea is that people are usually the best judges of what is in their own best interest. Individuals have more motivation to work hard to benefit themselves than to achieve any other goal.

That means productivity levels rise because everyone has a focus on what their daily needs will be. When everyone is looking out for themselves, then the general good becomes achievable because most people are not going to let themselves be run over by others.

1. It is an approach that would create a self-centered society.One of the principal tenets of ethical egoism is that no one else looks after your personal needs except you. That means everyone, including people in families, is pursuing a reflection of their self-interest. Marriages wouldnt be warm or compassionate places they would become a means to an end. Relationships with children would become the same way.

The idea that communication would improve to create stronger relationships is plausible, but ethical egoism always focuses on self-interest. If those bonds that people form no longer help to push someone forward, then society would say in this structure that you can abandon those people without a second thought.

2. There would be a loss of empathy in society with ethical egoism.Implementing a society focused on ethical egoism would cause us to lose sight of our current culture of empathy. The benefits of understanding how others think or feel are numerous, and its absence is one of the hallmarks of psychopathy. We need this trait to establish friendships, have satisfaction in our intimate relationships, and see reductions of aggression in society. Increases in empathy reduce incidents of domestic violence.

If people pursue their self-interests more than they support each other, then society would become violent. Our loss of empathy would lead to more errors, worse health outcomes, and people would feel less satisfied because each effort would become more difficult to complete.

3. It would lead to a breakdown in workplace relationships.Ethical egoism suggests that employee relationships would become problematic in a society with this structure because the business would only serve its purpose as a means to an end. The relationships formed throughout a career are focusing on what others can do for you instead of being a mutually beneficial place where a rising tide lifts all boats. Everyone would forgo what others could accomplish because their benefits are always the top priority in this structure.

4. Ethical egoism eliminates the concept of objectivity from society.If each person in society were to follow the theory of ethical egoism, then there would no longer be objectivity. No one would care about what anyone else thought with regards to their actions or pursuits. The only drive toward thoughts, feelings, and decisions would be self-interest.

That doesnt mean altruism would disappear entirely. People would still help others if there was a beneficial reason to do so, such as helping a charity because it promotes a higher level of fame. The issue here is that caring for others would often become the action of last resort instead of being a top priority.

5. It would only work if everyone was practicing this theory.Ethical egoism is a theory that only works when everyone practices it. Since people will not associate with someone for long if your words or actions are a reflection of only caring for yourself, the need to be loved by others would eventually cause this approach to malfunction. If the first priority of everyone is to profit from someone else without regard to their status in life, then those effects will eventually fail. There is nothing wrong with the approach of wanting to live life on your own terms, but the idea is to treat others in the same way that you want to be treated.

6. There are no solutions offered when conflicts of interest arise.Ethical egoism doesnt provide a solution when issues arise that involve a conflict of interest. Since most ethical issues involve this sort of problem, the approach at a societal level could cause productivity to grind to a halt. Imagine that a sewage treatment facility wants to dump raw waste into the local river. The people who live downstream from the facility would naturally object to that behavior. This approach would cause both parties to actively pursue what they want.

Ethical egoism doesnt suggest any sort of compromise to the situation. It does not encourage you to arrive at a place of common-sense resolution. You are going to win or lose because there is nothing in between those options

7. Ethical egoism goes against the principle of impartiality.The basic assumption made by most moral philosophers is that we shouldnt discriminate against people for arbitrary reasons. That means a persons gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or race shouldnt become part of the discussion because our diversity is what makes us stronger. Ethical egoism suggests that we shouldnt even try to be tolerant because it is more important to distinguish between ourselves and everyone else. Then we focus on offering preferential treatment internally or to our external factors.

Immanuel Kant argued over 200 years ago that the fundamental principle of morality is that we shouldnt make exceptions of ourselves. Thats what ethical egoism wants us to do. We shouldnt perform actions if we can honestly wish that everyone would behave in the same way under similar circumstances.

8. It isnt always in a persons best interest to pursue their own self-interest.Game theory uses the prisoners dilemma as an example of why ethical egoism is problematic. If you are in a hypothetical situation where a crime was committed and the police ask you to confess, the terms of the deal say that you get 6 months and your friend gets 10 years in prison. If your friend confesses and you do not, then the opposite result occurs. When both people confess, then you get five years, but if no one confesses, then you both get two years.

Regardless of what your friend does, the best thing to do is to confess because youll get a lighter sentence. Ethical egoism says both should pursue rational self-interest, but then the outcome is not the best possible one. It is an idea that shows how sacrificing your own interests for the good of others somethings denies the fundamental value of your own life.

Conclusion

The pros and cons of ethical egoism lead us to a place where morality becomes an individualized definition instead of a societal constraint. If killing someone was the action to take to improve ones status in society, then a refusal to commit violence would become the definition of an immoral act.

Thats why this approach, although theoretically a way to increase production and satisfaction, would ultimately create a place where no one would feel safe. It would be a chaotic environment where everyone focused on what their needs were first at the expense of everyone else.

Read the rest here:

15 Important Pros and Cons of Ethical Egoism ConnectUS

Ethical egoism theory provides a normative position that encourages people from a moral standpoint to do what is in their own best self-interest. This process differs from only acting upon items of self-interest or creating a rational explanation behind the need to pursue ones own self-interest.

In ethical egoism, actions which have consequences that will benefit the individual can be considered ethical, even if others hold a different definition of ethics.

The concepts of ethical egoism were first introduced by Henry Sidgwick in a book published in 1874 entitled The Methods of Ethics. Sidgwick introduced the idea of ethical egoism to counter the idea of utilitarianism, or the desire to maximize personal pleasure at all times. Egoism, Sidgwick argues, focuses on maximizing the pleasure of the individual.

Ethical egoism can be divided into three general categories.

Although it might seem to imply otherwise, ethical egoism theory does not require individuals to harm the interests of others when making a moral decision. That harm may occur as a consequence of pursuing ones own interest, but it does not promote foolishness. It does not promote always doing what one wants to do either.

That is because short-term decisions that might seem good at the time may be detrimental to a persons long-term outlook. Eating potato chips, drinking 5 sodas each day, and having cake for dinner every night might provide short-term pleasure, but ethical egoism would say such actions are not in the persons self-interest because of the threat those short-term decisions would have on long-term health.

The primary justification for ethical egoism is that each person has a natural desire to fulfill their own wants and needs. Each person is also placed into a position where they can pursue those wants and needs with whatever energy they desire. Some may choose wants over needs and suffer, while others may not be able to meet even basic needs, but that does not change the ethics in pursuing what is desired.

A popular expression in society comes from Christianity, specifically from the book of Genesis. God asks Cain where his brother happens to be. Cains response is defiant. I dont know. Am I my brothers keeper? In ethical egoism, the idea is that each person knows what is best for their short-term and long-term wants and needs. Others must make assumptions about what they are, which makes the acquiring process inefficient.

It may be a reasonable belief to assume that individuals can support one another, but it would also be a reasonable belief to assume that we would cause more harm than good when trying to meet those wants and needs for someone else.

Ethical Egoism also eliminates the concept of altruism. This is usually exampled by hunger. If you eat a sandwich in front of someone who is hungry, it would be considered an immoral indulgence because you are meeting your needs, but ignoring the needs of someone else. Yet it would be a moral indulgence to solve hunger in someone else, but creating hunger in oneself. Ethical egoism solves that problem by directing each individual to solve their own hunger problem instead of relying on someone else to do it for them.

It could be argued that every moral duty that has been accepted by various human societies over the centuries has been based on principles of ethical egoism. Whether that means love one another or always tell the truth, the goal is to improve ones own wants and needs in some way.

Ethical egoism is only as beneficial as the moral code of the person implementing this theory. A murderer could say that it is morally right to kill others because it provides them with satisfaction, especially if there is no fear of imprisonment, being caught, or having a death warrant issued after a conviction. Thieves could steal in good conscience. Husbands or wives could cheat on their spouses because concerns are for the self only.

Ethical egoism theory has its proponents and its critics. By understanding its concepts, it becomes possible to see how each person implements them in their daily lives.

Read more here:

Ethical Egoism Theory Explained - HRF

Ethical egoism is the view that people ought to pursue their own self-interest, and no one has any obligation to promote anyone elses interests. It is thus a normative or prescriptive theory: it is concerned with how people ought to behave. In this respect, ethical egoism is quite different from psychological egoism, the theory that all our actions are ultimately self-interested. Psychological egoism is a purely descriptive theory that purports to describe a basic fact about human nature.

Everyone pursuing his own self-interest is the best way to promote the general good. This argument was made famous by Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) in his poem "The Fable of the Bees" and by Adam Smith (1723-1790) in his pioneering work on economics, "The Wealth of Nations."

In a famous passage, Smith wrote that when individuals single-mindedly pursue the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires they unintentionally, as if led by an invisible hand, benefit society as a whole. This happy result comes about because people generally are the best judges of what is in their own interest, and they are much more motivated to work hard to benefit themselves than to achieve any other goal.

An obvious objection to this argument, though, is that it doesnt really support ethical egoism. It assumes that what really matters is the well-being of society as a whole, the general good. It then claims that the best way to achieve this end is for everyone to look out for themselves. But if it could be proved that this attitude did not, in fact, promote the general good, then those who advance this argument would presumably stop advocating egoism.

Another objection is that what the argument states is not always true. Consider the prisoners dilemma, for instance. This is a hypothetical situation described in game theory.You and a comrade, (call him X) are being held in prison. You are both asked to confess. The terms of the deal you are offered are as follows:

Regardless of what X does, the best thing for you to do is confess. Because if he doesnt confess, youll get a light sentence; and if he does confess, youll at least avoid getting extra prison time. But the same reasoning holds for X as well. According to ethical egoism, you should both pursue your rational self-interest. But then the outcome is not the best one possible. You both get five years, whereas if both of you had put your self-interest on hold, youd each only get two years.

The point of this is simple. It isnt always in your best interest to pursue your own self-interest without concern for others. Sacrificing your own interests for the good of others denies the fundamental value of your own life to yourself.

This seems to be the sort of argument put forward by Ayn Rand, the leading exponent of objectivism and the author of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged."Her complaint is that the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, which includesor has fed intomodern liberalism and socialism, pushes an ethic of altruism.Altruism means putting the interests of others before your own.

This is something people are routinely praised for doing, encouraged to do, and in some circumstances even required to do, such as when you pay taxes to support the needy.According to Rand, no one has any right to expect or demand that I make any sacrifices for the sake of anyone other than myself.

A problem with this argument is that it seems to assume that there is generally a conflict between pursuing your own interests and helping others.In fact, though, most people would say that these two goals are not necessarily opposed at all.Much of the time they complement one another.

For instance, one student may help a housemate with her homework, which is altruistic.But that student also has an interest in enjoying good relations with her housemates. She may not help everyone in all circumstances, but she will help if the sacrifice involved is not too great.Most people behave like this, seeking a balance between egoism and altruism.

Ethical egoism is not a very popular moral philosophy. This is because it goes against certain basic assumptions that most people have regarding what ethics involves. Two objections seem especially powerful.

Ethical egoism has no solutions to offer when a problem arises involving conflicts of interest. Many ethical issues are of this sort. For example, a company wants to empty waste into a river; the people living downstream object. Ethical egoism advises that both parties actively pursue what they want. It doesnt suggest any sort of resolution or commonsense compromise.

Ethical egoism goes against the principle of impartiality. A basic assumption made by many moral philosophersand many other people, for that matteris that we should not discriminate against people on arbitrary grounds such as race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or ethnic origin. But ethical egoism holds that we should not even try to be impartial. Rather, we should distinguish between ourselves and everyone else, and give ourselves preferential treatment.

To many, this seems to contradict the very essence of morality. The golden ruleversions of which appear in Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islamsays we should treat others as we would like to be treated. One of the greatest moral philosophers of modern times, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), argued that the fundamental principle of morality (the categorical imperative, in his jargon) is that we should not make exceptions of ourselves. According to Kant, we shouldntperform an action if we cannot honestly wish that everyone would behave in a similar way in the same circumstances.

See original here:

What Is Ethical Egoism? - ThoughtCo

The end of the 19th century, as the Dreyfus affair shook France and anti-Semitism surfaced as a political force, was not an obvious moment for a French Jew to rediscover optimism. mile Durkheim (1858-1917), the countrys foremost sociologist, was an especially unlikely candidate for hope. He had spent the last decade in a state of well-informed anxiety. His research seemed to show that economic tensions and cultural fragmentation were unraveling the conditions for collective existence in France and throughout the world.

The 1894 condemnation of Jewish army officer Alfred Dreyfus by a French military tribunal on false evidence, and the ensuing partisan, virulently anti-Semitic efforts to prevent a retrial, might have confirmed Durkheims despair. Instead it revitalized his faith in France and its liberal democracy. This faith was not metaphorical. Durkheim insisted, to the chagrin of allies and opponents ever since, that democracy was a religion, and the rights-bearing individual its god. A century later, as individual rights and popular sovereignty are increasingly embattled, Durkheims intellectual legacy challenges defenders of liberalism to embrace emotion, community, and faith.

A rabbis son, Durkheim left the religion of his childhood to study philosophy in Paris. At 29, he began to teach, offering courses on political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These forebears, he found, had made a fatal error. Basing their theories on the notion that individuals, naturally endowed with liberty, had been brought together in an artificial social contract, they saw society as something extrinsic to human nature, and philosophical speculation as something prior to empirical research. They devised ideal constitutions in which a general will, embodied by a monarch or a majority opinion, would dominate the selfish desires of individuals. Yet these philosophers seemed to know little about individuals, society, and the state as we find them in the world. If we want to know about the nature of things or the rules for living, Durkheim chided, we must go back to things themselves, and thus to science.

Durkheim became one of the founders of sociology, a budding discipline meant to provide scientific knowledge about topics that had long been the preserve of speculation and belief. In the following decade of the 1890s, he wrote a manifesto, The Rules of Sociological Method (1894), that called for empirical research into human behavior and the evolution of social structuresonly after this kind of study, he argued, could political and ethical theorizing proceed on a sound basis. However Durkheims research for The Division of Labor (1893) and Suicide (1897) brought him to a precipice of despair.

Inspired by biology, Durkheim tried to explain why people in capitalist societies, bound by complex networks of exchange, seemed to be drifting ever further apart. Think, he asked readers, of the finches Charles Darwin had studied in the Galapagos Islands. Under the pressure of competition for resources, the members of a single species separated into a variety of new ones, each with physical features adapted to different sources of food. In what seemed to be an impeccably scientific analogy, Durkheim argued that people and societies evolve in just the same way. Members of traditional, pre-modern societies, like the original finches, are more or less identical to each other. The pressure of capitalist competition introduces a principle of differentiation, as people divide themselves into increasingly specialized economic roles, with finely tailored lifestyles, identities, and values to match.

In its economic form, as the division of labor, this growing specialization permits a vast increase in societys productive powersbut with dire social and psychological consequences. Traditional bonds of religion and family collapse, and individuals, ironically isolated by the economic forces that overwhelm them all, take refuge in illusory communities, which are too frail to bear the weight of human fate. The anarchist, the aesthete, the mystic and the socialist revolutionary, he warned, all hasten societys demise.

Durkheim saw little remedy for this crisis. Modern capitalist societies like France were losing the shared sets of values and points of reference that make life bearable, breaking down into fleeting, fragmentary tribes whose members were aggressively narcissistic and desperately lonesome. Even if by some incomprehensible miracle there appeared a moral code to reunite society, the competitive logic of the capitalist system would drive its members again into self-centeredness and division.

***

While Durkheim was researching his way into hopelessness, the 1894 condemnation of Dreyfus was transforming French politics. By 1898, many of the countrys most eminent writers, artists and scholars had come to Dreyfus defense. The more politically savvy of Dreyfus defenders, the Dreyfusards, saw his unjust sentence as an opportunity to defend the principles of human rights and to weaken the army, a bastion of conservatives who seemed to be waiting for their own chance to sabotage the Third Republic, Frances liberal democratic regime. But the republics enemies also sensed an opportunity.

Founded in 1870 after decades of authoritarian rule and frequent coups, the republic appeared to many French observers as a creation of Jews, Protestants and nonbelievers. These minorities were accused of using the forms of liberal democracy, such as an emphasis on individual rights, to protect themselves fromand indeed to oppressFrances Catholic majority.

The grain of truth in the anti-republic perspective was that minorities did have good reason to see the republic as their best defense against intolerance. The Dreyfus affair offered anti-republicans a chance to exploit anti-Semitic prejudice, charging that Dreyfus defenders treacherously insisted on the rights of the accused in order to undermine Frances national defense. If Dreyfus name were cleared, conservatives warned, military morale would plummet, leaving the nation vulnerable to a rising Germany. The rights of a single individualespecially a Jewcould not be allowed to imperil the needs of the entire country. This argument, bruited by many anti-Dreyfusards, was delivered with particular flair by literary editor Ferdinand Brunetire in an 1898 article, After the Trial.

Brunetire argued that the affair had revealed a fundamental conflict within the Third Republic between responsible people who accepted that the needs of the community must overrun individual rights, and the anarchists, socialists and radical individualists who were willing to risk the very existence of France for the sake of a single persons freedom. This was an argument that Durkheim could understand, one that might have appealed to his own concern about the pernicious individualizing forces of modern society. But Durkheim had changed his mind. In a series of essays written in 1898 and 1899, he answered Brunetire, defended the Dreyfusards, and outlined a vision of society and politics that shattered his earlier pessimism.

Durkheims thinking was transformed by an empathetic and critical engagement with the anti-Dreyfusards. In an essay on anti-Semitism, he dismissed the idea that Dreyfus opponents were motivated by hatred and prejudice. Anti-Semitism, he insisted, was an expression of capitalist societies economic troubles and moral distress, phenomena he had documented himself. Ordinary people, no less than sociologists, seek explanations for the bewilderments of modernity and, too often, find scapegoats.

In Suicide, written only a few years earlier, Durkheim saw the ideologies that arose in response to contemporary capitalism as mere continuations of its atomizing tendencies. Now, reflecting on the French response to Dreyfus convinction in 1894, Durkheim recalled a surge of joy on the boulevards. The French crowds had been delighted, Durkheim suggested, not because they had an excuse to persecute a member of a despised minority, but because they had been relieved to find themselves gathered together before an explanation and an answer to their sufferings. The structure of anti-Semitism suggested a way out of the troubles and distress of modern society: a shared longing for a comprehensible world.

The anarchist, the aesthete, the mystic and the socialist revolutionary, mile Durkheim warned, all hasten societys demise.

In a companion essay on militarism, Durkheim deepened his analysis of the anti-Dreyfus camp. Like anti-Semitism, militarism now appeared to him as a distorted form of a vital social imperative. He argued that the French people, seeing the army as their defense against Germany, had made it the object of a cult something untouchable and sacred. By sacrificing the innocent Dreyfus, they were trying to appease their god.

Durkheim could have lingered on the cruelty and irrationality of this sacrifice. Instead, he suggested that the task of liberals was to find a better cult. The French needed other ideas in which they can commune with each other, other ends to pursue in common. The Dreyfusards would have to offer not only political principles, such as individual rights, but also a sense of belonging, a form of collectivity organized around transcendent values and directed toward the realization of concrete ends. Dreyfus would be saved not by mere appeals to due process, but by a cult of justice, a collective passion for individual rights.

Such a religion of individual rights could hardly be whipped together for the occasion, Durkheim noted. But in an 1898 essay, Individualism and the Intellectuals, he argued that this religion was in fact already the common faith of France.

In another paradoxical argument, a match for his claims that the anti-Dreyfusards were motivated by a misguided love of truth and community, Durkheim set out to prove that the Dreyfusards insistence on the rights of a single person was an act of worship that united the members of the French nation to their countrymen and to a shared past. In doing so, Durkheim confronted Brunetires critique of individualism, which so resembled his own earlier assessments of modern society. Brunetire had argued that liberal democracy weakened the nation by emphasizing individual rights over the needs of the group: Countering Brunetire, Durkheim paradoxically traced the history of these rights, beginning with the Enlightenment philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau who first conceived of them.

***

The Dreyfus affair had given Durkheim a new, ironic perspective on the Enlightenment project. Years before, the theories of Rousseau and his colleagues had struck Durkheim as shallow and idealistic. They had suggested that society was only a kind of contract to protect the rights of the individuals who composed it, but, as Durkheim the sociologist had showed, it was society that created individuals, not the other way around. The philosophers had been wrong about human nature and the relationship between individuals and societyyet, however mistaken, their ideas had entered into the repertoire of beliefs and prejudices shared by most French people, and so in the process attained an unexpected kind of truth.

The key ideas of liberalismthat society is founded by and composed of originally isolated rights-bearing individuals, and that the legitimacy of the state is based on its offering protection to individuals rightsare false from a scientific or philosophic point of view, Durkheim argued, in that they are unable to stand up to critical scrutiny. But they have become, as it were, effectively true, or true enough. French people believe in the existence of the liberal individual and see their history as the story of his triumph.

It was the religious fervor of the Dreyfusards that seems to have set Durkheim on this path of thought. After all, Durkheim observed, it should surprise us that thousands of people could be so committed to the defense of a single stranger. What mere individual can be worth risking the safety of a whole country? Something more than scientific or philosophical rationality must be at work. When we are horrified by violations of someones rights, Durkheim argued, we are experiencing the disgust and fear that religious believers feel when something sacred and inviolable is being transgressedthough we are not much concerned about the actual person whose rights are being violated, the particular being that constitutes himself and carries his name.

Thus it was not really Dreyfus whom the Dreyfusards wanted to defend, but an impersonal and anonymous individual, an abstract humanity in which all members of liberal democracies share. As Durkheim said: man has become a god to man each individual mind has within it something of the divine, marked by a characteristic which renders it sacred and inviolable.

Liberal democracy, Durkheim argued, is therefore best understood not as an accurate or even rational set of claims about the proper relationship between individuals and society, but rather as a religion that enshrines and celebrates the rights of the ideal, abstract individual, who is its god.

Against Brunetires charges that an exaggerated respect for individual rights was endangering the French nation, Durkheim countered that it was this religion that was its very soul. For this reason, Durkheim warned, the goal of a cosmopolitan order in which the nation-state might disappear was an illusionliberal norms can only be sustained by a community of believers rooted in shared patterns of life and circuits of feeling. Until the end of his life, despite the growing influence of international socialist movements, Durkheim hoped that French socialists would return to French traditions and abandon the dream of a global revolution; liberal democracy is a religion, but it is a national, not a universal belief system.

***

After the deceptions of his fathers Judaism, Enlightenment philosophy, and the scientific study of society, Durkheim had found what he recognized to be a new faith. For the next two decades, until his death in 1917, he would devote himself to proving that all societies have a religious basis (in his Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 1913) and to providing French teachers with the courage to embrace their role as priests of the republic. They must instill in children a democratic morality, built of respect for individual rights and love for the nation. History, for example, should be taught as the achievement of the former by the latter: the child, and later the adult, will learn that the rights that are granted to them, the freedom that they enjoy, the moral dignity that they believe themselves to possess, all of these are the creation of that personal but impersonal being we call France. Only by confronting rigidly enforced rules will children learn to respect something greater than themselvesthe basic attitude required for all religions, including that of liberal democracy.

While he did not argue that the state should limit religious freedom, Durkheim did not imagine that it could be possible to separate church and state in the sense usually understood by defenders of Frances particular form of secularism, lacit. Religion is the foundation of politics, he insisted. The Third Republic could only thrive if its defenders accepted it for what it was: the true church of the French, the institution through which they worshipped the rights-bearing individual.

Durkheims idiosyncratic calls for the state to shape individuals on societys behalf, and to manage their education as a religious enterprise, alienated potential allies, like liberal Jewish and Protestant intellectuals, who fought for a public sphere that could accommodate many forms of religious practice. Anti-Semites didnt care for Durkheim, either. In 1911, the nephew of Gabriel Tarde, a rival sociologist, co-authored a pamphlet suggesting that Durkheims conception of society was a Jewish God, a tyrannical entity ruling humanity through a caste of priests.

Later generations of French Jewish intellectuals, including Durkheims own nephew, Marcel Mauss, have not been much kinder. In the 1930s, as they watched the Nazi party take power in Germany through quasi-religious public rituals, it seemed to Mauss and Durkheims former colleague Lon Brunschvig that the sort of collective faith Durkheim celebrated was serving fascism, not democracy.

But the dangers posed by the Third Reichanti-Semitism, militarism, contempt for individual rightswere dangers Durkheim knew. It had been precisely by meditating on their social and psychological causes that he had found his controversial faith in liberal democracy. And indeed, the case of Germany, seen through Durkheims eyes, shows that what threatens democracy most is too little, rather than too much, faith in the individual.

In a 1915 pamphlet, The German Mentality and the War, Durkheim laid blame for the outbreak of World War I on German thinkers such as Heinrich von Treitschke who had doubted the capacity of individuals for moral collective action. Taking to heart the philosophical sketch of individuals offered by the Enlightenment tradition, and by social scientists like Durkheim, Treitschke saw them as essentially self-interested, isolated beings unable to form authentic social bonds that could transcend their egoism. He reasoned accordingly that instead of worshipping an ideal individual, who is never actually found anywhere, German thinkers rightly worshipped the statewhich had the advantage of actually existing. The German state, thus worshipped, was given free rein to oppress its subjects and invade its neighbors. Germanys authoritarianism and aggression were the consequences of its thinkers faith in a visible godthe state.

It might seem that by endorsing a religion of the ideal individual, Durkheim was inviting readers to embrace a noble lie about individuals, who can be dreadful. Yet far from choosing to ignore the darker aspects of human nature, Durkheim in his post-Dreyfus perspective appears to have become a more sensitive observer of its paradoxes.

Days after his son was killed in action on the Balkan front of WWI, Durkheim wrote to his nephew Mauss, life triumphs over death. He told Mauss that his grandmother, after her son had died, spent a week mourning, but on the eighth day couldnt stop herself from asking about neighborhood gossip. She had not forgotten her griefbut to be alive is ever to be pulled away from reckoning ones own pains and pleasures and to be drawn into the lives of others. What seem like the hardest things religion can demandthe overcoming of self-interestedness and of the terror of deathare in fact sublimely ordinary.

Every feature of human nature that might inspire hope, Durkheim knew, can be put to evil use. Our desire to stand together in a comprehensible world, our longing for community, and our readiness to project idealized visions over unsatisfactory realities may lead us to commit horrible deeds. But it is these enduring emotional structures that also lead us to connection with other people and offer the only possible foundation for a decent political order.

***

You can help support Tablets unique brand of Jewish journalism. Click here to donate today.

Blake Smith is a Harper Schmidt Fellow at the University of Chicago, where he works on cultural ties between France and India.

More:

mile Durkheim and the Religion of Liberal Democracy - Tablet Magazine

Smoke rises over the Syrian town of Ras al Ain, as seen from the Turkish border town of Ceylanpinar, Turkey on Wednesday.. (photo credit: REUTERS/MURAD SEZER)

The decision by US President Donald Trump to withdraw American soldiers stationed in northeastern Syria from the Turkish border has been met across the board by a chorus of moral indignation. It has been termed a betrayal of the Kurds or an abandonment of allies.

This criticism was partly motivated by the widespread dislike and contempt in liberal circles toward the American president. Partly it was motivated by a genuine moral revulsion about leaving the Kurdish forces that fought together with America against ISIS, to face alone a Turkish powerful army.

International politics is a self-help system, meaning that each state has to take care of its own security and independence. The existence of small states is particularly precarious. For example, the Baltic states existed for only a short time between the two World Wars because Russian power was limited at that time. In the Middle East, Kuwait and Lebanon have been targets of a politicide campaign by their stronger neighbors, Iraq and Syria, respectively. The Kurdish entity in northeastern Syria was born as the result of a temporary power vacuum, as Syria and Iraq were weakened by domestic problems. The weakness of Syria also invited several Turkish conquests.

In short, reliance on powerful allies is not enough to survive in the Hobbesian world in which we live.

The Kurds should have known better and prepared for a rainy day. After all, the US has several times allied with the Kurds and then changed sides when its perceived interests demanded it. This happened in 1975 when Gerald Ford was president, and in 1992 when George H.W. Bush was president. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter even abrogated a formal agreement approved by the US Senate, a US defense treaty with Taiwan, as a price for improving relations with Beijing.

Thus, what Trump did last week accords with previous presidential decisions. Moreover, his intention to withdraw troops from Syria was announced more than a year ago. It is part of a policy approach initiated his predecessor, President Barack Obama namely, American withdrawal from the Middle East. This policy makes some sense as the US does not need Middle East oil and its military involvement in this region has been costly.

While Trump is not a reading man, his decision is in line with an old tradition that Thucydides, Machiavelli and Kissinger propagated, namely realpolitik. The expectation that states in the international system will act in accordance with ethical tenets is very nave. Generally, states pursue their interests in amoral perspective. States are not Mother Theresa. The only moral imperative is survival. Survival, security and prosperity for citizens is the goal. Egoism, not altruism, is the guiding principle.

Therefore, accusations that Trump is conducting an immoral foreign policy are off base. Presidents and statesmen should be judged by the success of achieving their states interests at the lowest cost, not by the morality of the measures taken.

It should be further noted that state interests are defined by state leaders. In democracies, such interests usually are in sync with societal preferences. And in fact, Trumps isolationist approach well reflects the sentiments of American society today. After several decades of sending US troops to the Middle East with little to show for the effort, America is tired of wars. American exceptionalism and missionary belief in the cause of democracy, that many admired over the years, seems to be in need of a break.

In any case, Trump never shared such noble instincts, and he clearly senses the negative mood in America about foreign adventures. By ordering the troops home, Trump is responding his public, and this may prove useful to him in next years presidential election campaign.

Trumps decision obviously affects Israels interests. The withdrawal of America from the Middle East allows for greater freedom of action of regional powers such as Iran and Turkey, which is bad news. Some Gulf states may gravitate toward Iran not a good development. Yet, Israel may also now enjoy greater latitude in pursuing its interests and in using force.

Instead of joining the chorus of indignation, Israel should adapt as quickly as possible to the new circumstances and find appropriate responses to a situation that, again, was not a real surprise.

Israel is very fortunate to have the US as an ally and to have a friendly president like Trump. But Israel has never relied on others for its national security. Israeli strategic thinking always has emphasized self-reliance. Today, as always, Israel must be prepared to act independently of Washington.

The writer is president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (jiss.org.il).

var cont = `Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>

`;document.getElementById("linkPremium").innerHTML = cont;(function (v, i){});

Share on facebook

Read more here:

Beyond the chorus of indignation - The Jerusalem Post

Yell Division spokesperson Morgan Ortagus described the two individuals as abusing their privileges of attach.

The Cuban communist regime known as the pass a indecent calumny orchestrated by the reactionary, anti-Cuban Trump administration. Cubas Ministry of International Affairs debuted a chronicle attacking the USA for its change sanctions on the regime on Friday, in anticipation for next weeks U.N. Overall Assembly overall debate.

The Division of Yell this day notified the Cuban Ministry of International Affairs that the USA requires the coming near near departure of two individuals of Cubas Permanent Mission to the United Nations for abusing their privileges of attach, Ortagus mentioned in an announcement. This is on account of their makes an strive to behavior have an effect on operations towards the USA.

Ortagus didnt title the individuals expelled from the nation, but did yell that every one Cuban regime operatives on the U.N. mission will now if truth be told be restricted to the island of Broad apple.

We defend any and all makes an strive towards the Nationwide Security of the USA seriously, and ought to continue to look at any extra personnel who would be manipulating their privileges of attach, her observation concluded.

The Cuban regime has for a long time abused the few diplomatic ties its allowed within the USA for espionage and anti-American activities. In maybe the most renowned fashionable instance of Cuban spies threatening national safety, a bunch of agents identified as the Cuban five infiltrated the Cuban exile group in Miami and gave Havana intelligence that allowed the Castro regime to abolish four American citizens. The males Carlos Costa, Armando Alejandre, Mario de la Pea, and Pablo Morales were flying ethical rescue missions in international waters when Castro agents shot their planes down; the Cuban fives intelligence gave the Cuban navy the data mandatory to search out the planes.

No subject being a sinister violation of international law, the Cuban government suffered no penalties for the murders. President Barack Obama freed the Cuban five to a heros welcome in Havana in 2014. Gael Garca Bernal is at display starring in a film glorifying the work the spies did to abolish the American citizens.

The Cuban International Ministry (MINREX) issued an outraged tweet consistent with the expulsion.

I categorically reject the unjustified expulsion of two officials on the Permanent Mission of Cuba on the U.N. and the hardening of restrictions of scoot on diplomats and families, International Ministry Bruno Rodrguez mentioned on Twitter. The implication that they committed acts incompatible with their diplomatic attach is a indecent calumny.

Rodrguez held a press conference Friday where he claimed he came upon out regarding the expulsion by intention of a U.S. diplomatic tweet. He claimed the pass introduced on absolute and packed with life rejection from our of us, our ministry, and our government.

It is fully unjustified and illegitimate to strongarm our diplomats, he complained.

Rodrguez went on to name the Trump administration a reactionary, anti-Cuban group that has hijacked American foreign coverage on Cuba and Latin America and accused Trump of lashing out at Cuba for electoral pursuits implying that strengthening national safety defenses would support Trump hold the 2020 election.

The Permanent Mission to the U.N. representing Cuba save out its maintain observation denying any wrongdoing, then admitting that American officials had notified it that the two individuals in inquire were caught enticing in destructive acts to U.S. national safety on September 12, about a week earlier than any statements on Twitter to that cease.

The point out mentioned that, unless Cuba lent data to present an explanation for [their behavior] in every other case, they [the U.S.] would demand for the required planning to occur for the departure of the two officials and their families within 48 hours, earlier than the high of the day on September 20, the observation learn.

The mission claims to own replied with their explanation for the officials behavior, but the U.S. aspect, in flagrant violation of the main tips of diplomatic protocol, determined to answer in a tweet.

The expulsions are acts of vengeance and impotence, the mission concluded.

The diplomatic scuffle comes on the eve of a week of debate on the U.N. Overall Assembly, where most of the realms heads of articulate are invited to defend the ground and discuss whatever they desire. America grants dictators and international criminals who withhold head of articulate attach immunity to back the match, ensuing in leaders delight in Miguel Daz-Canel who is now no longer the head of articulate of Cuba, but nonetheless holds the title of president addressing the assembly remaining 300 and sixty five days to bash America for imperialism.

Following a speech in which President Donald Trump entreated the realm to think again socialism, Daz-Canel contended that the realms horrors were the final consequence of capitalism, namely imperialism and neoliberalism, of the egoism and exclusion that accompany this vogue, and of an financial, political, social, and cultural paradigm that privileges that accumulation of wealth in few hands on the associated rate of exploitation and misfortune of the heaps.

While in Novel York, Daz-Canel enjoyed a widely known person-studded welcome organized by Robert Effect Niro and concluded the day out with a night of salsa dancing.

Follow Frances Martel onFacebookandTwitter.

Read the original:

US Expels Cuban Diplomats for Threatening National Security - Headlinez Pro

For journalist and author Don Lattin, the truth used to be simple, or at least it appeared to be. With capital T Truth as his professions first pursuit, Lattins spent a career diligently reporting his stories with a commitment to get at all sides of an issue. Until recently, he always wrote in the third person in hopes of providing expository and unbiased reports.

As a journalist, I am really kind of old school, Latin says. For most of my career, I was a dirty word because its not about me, its about the story.

But whether he likes it or not, Lattin acknowledges that the world of journalism is changing, and fast. Hes ber aware of the rise of the blog-o-shepre, click-bait content and opinion pieces, and he worries that, in general, journalism is becoming too egocentric.

I feel [first person reporting] is often self-indulgent, he says. At its heart, the job is to go out and do actual reporting, which is hard and expensive, but really important. So yeah, you could say I am actually concerned about the direction journalism is going.

It isnt just the macro-level changes that concern him, but specifically how the rise of pseudo-journalism might discredit the more controversial subjects of religion and psychedelics he researches. When dealing with the scientific legitimization of things like God and altered states of mind, it seems to him ever more important to maintain a line of objectivity.

Lattins latest book is a long-form investigation into the ongoing wave of scientific research and an epic attempt to offer in-depth coverage of the ongoing renaissance in psychedelic science. Changing Our Minds: Psychedelic Sacraments and the New Psychotherapy is in essence an unbiased look at the recent history and credible prospects for using MDMA, psilocybin and ayahuasca to treat mood disorders and promote spiritual well-being.

But what started out as a straightforward journalistic pursuit got complicated when he found the scientific community was wrestling with its own questions of objectivity.

In writing the book, I found that there is a debate going on in psychedelic scientific and journalistic circles about how open people should be in talking about their own experiences, especially if you are breaking the law, Lattin says.

As a writer, what I struggled with in this book was when to get in, and when to get out, in terms of my story because it can begin to feel too self-indulgent. You want to be in it, to help the reader connect, but if youre in it too much it becomes self-indulgent.

Ultimately I thought it was important for me to experience the drugs and sacred plant medicines and to include that as a part of the narrative, although in limited measure. In the book, I am asking people to tell me very intimate details about their lives about their addictions, diseases and psychological intimacies. I felt I had to sort of do the same.

Coincidentally or not, considerations of egoism are not just prevalent in the ethical considerations of researchers, but in the nature of psychedelic experiences themselves. In treating certain psychological diseases like, psilocybin-assisted therapy for addiction is that the drugs allow people to transcend their ego.

Scientists think the mystical state achieved by consumers while on psilocybin is, essentially, ego dissolution. That is to say that, by way of the drugs, you are suddenly connected to this bigger thing through which you obtain unitive experiences, a sense of oneness and feelings of gratitude and selflessness.

To be sure, it can go the other way too, as a portion of users report feelings of grandiosity reporting feeling like everything in the world is revolving around them. According to Lattin, to which side the cookie crumbles depends on and speaks to the larger question of the whole human search for spirit thing.

Its like that Beatles song, Revolution, Lattin says. You say you want a revolution? You know, that you want to change the constitution? He pauses to laugh. Well, you know, youd better free your mind instead.

Back in my day, when I first started thinking and experiencing psychedelic culture, that was the idea, anyway before you get involved in politics you need to become more enlightened yourself. Thats all fine and good, but you risk becoming a navel gazer who is too self-indulgent.

It will be interesting to see how the psychedelic community will evolve in that way whether our conversations about evolutions in consciousness will be big enough to consider how it might change our world for the better and not just our own minds.

Clarification and correction: In last weeks column, Star power, the author said the species had no genetic precursors and that there were no near-genetic relatives of the plant. Cannabis sativa has an inconclusive taxonomic organization and evolutionary history and no definitive claims can be made to that end.

Also, Cannabis sativa is not the only plant in existence to display its gender physically as written in the column.

Read more:

You say you want a revolution - Boulder Weekly

I. Definition

You may think you already know egoism; but youre probably thinking of egotismself-importance, or self-centeredness. In contrast, egoism is the philosophical view that human beings do, or should, always act for their own benefit. Both words are derived from the Latin word for I ego.

Egoism and egotism are quite different. For example, egotists often talk about themselves a lot, not listening to otherswhich makes people dislike them. In contrast, egoists might act very humbly, and pay attention to othersbecause its in their best interests to make people like them and want to treat them well. Egotism is a character trait; egoism is a philosophy.

Even so, you might think that egoists must secretly be egotistsand a lot of philosophers would agree with you. But the point is that egoism does not necessarily violate our usual notions of what is right and wrong. We will return to this questionof whether egoism implies immoralityin other sections.

In fact, some of our highest ideals in the Western worldindividual rights, freedom, and democracydepend on ideas similar to egoism. All of these philosophies depend on the idea that humans normally do or should pursue their own welfare and happiness. The problem, of course, is when your welfare conflicts with someone elsesanother point well discuss below.

But whether you think egoism is right or wrong depends a lot on what kind of egoism youre talking about. The two main kinds of egoism are quite different; descriptive egoism just claims that human being do always act for their own benefit; while normative egoism claims that we should always act for our own benefit.

The most popular variety of descriptive egoism is psychological egoism, which simply claims that whatever a human being does, the ultimate aim is self-benefit. If psychological egoism is correct, it means that even when people appear to act for others benefit, with no concern for themselveswhich is called altruismtheyre actually doing it for their own sake. It doesnt mean that anyone is necessarily trying to be deceptive, or pretending, to help others (although thats a possibility of course). Psychological egoists would say that people may act altruistically because it will be good for them in the long run, or because it makes them feel good when they do it.

There are at least two main categories of psychological egoismdesire-based and objective. The first says that humans are always doing what they desire. For example, even if you say you dont want to do your homework, you do choose to do it; you have the option to not do it, and suffer the consequences. So, you do desire to do your homeworkjust not for its own sake.

But, this kind of psychological egoism seems to be trivially true; it doesnt say why we make what choices we do.

Other kinds of psychological egoism are called objective because they claim that we are always pursuing certain objectives. Some say we always act for pleasure. Others argue that we always pursue whatever we think will bring us the most benefit.

But most philosophers have rejected psychological egoism. For one thing it is probably unprovable because it is a theory about our deepest motivationswhich are private. How could anyone prove whether you help an old lady across the street only for her sake, or because it makes you feel good about yourself? You may not be sure yourself which it is!

But that kind of example is another reason most philosophers reject psychological egoismbecause human beings really do sometimes act for the benefit of others without expecting to any reward for themselves. Altruism; well come back to this debate in section III.

Normative egoism is not about what humans do, but about what they should do. Two kinds of normative egoism are well known:

Ethical egoists may argue that you cannot know what is best for anyone but yourselfand so it is immoral to try. If you try to act in reference to other peoples interests, rather than your own, you can easily do things those people wouldnt want, mess up other peoples lives, or just violate their right to decide what happens to them, which would be immoral. Ethical egoists also might argue that human beings are dependent on one another for survival, so therefore, it is your moral obligation to take care of yourself first, so that others dont have toand so that you have the ability to take care of them. In other words, whats in your best interests is ultimately in everybodys best interests.

Which brings us to rational egoism, which assumes that we should act rationally, which is egoistically. The most famous rational egoist, the writer Ayn Rand, argued strongly against sacrificing ones own interests for others. She argued that not taking full advantage of ones own freedom is immoral because it opposes the natural fulfilment of human potential, which is the best thing for everyone in a society. For example, if I dont work as hard as possible for my own personal success, then I might fail to accomplish many things that would be good for the world.

Nevertheless, many philosophers feel that rational egoism cannot provide a basis for ethical behaviorthat it is, rather, a justification for amorality (no morality), which could be very dangerous.

In the big picture, its worth noting that egoism has been a characteristically Western philosophy since at least Aristotle. Although there were a few ancient Chinese thinkers who had egoistic ideas, in general, egoism is much harder to justify in Eastern thought, where the ego (the personal self) is an illusion that one should try to get over!

In the west, Aristotle is cited for his early contribution to egoism, in the Nicomachean Ethics, where he points out that one must act for ones own benefit in order to be a good friend, or a good citizenbecause you cant do any good for other people if youre not in good condition yourself. However, Aristotle was not really an egoist, because he believed that it was the primary value of helping others that justified helping oneself.

The main ideas of psychological egoism started popping up in Europe during the Reformation (17th century) such as in the writings of philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (see next section for a quote). Hobbes (and others) argued that all voluntary actions are, by definition, egoisticbecause they are voluntary. So, humans are always acting for their own sakes, whether they think so or not.

Many philosophers shared this view during the 18th century, supported by the rationalism of the time. But David Hume, in his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (Appendix IIOf Self Love), set forth some well-known arguments against it. Hume said that psychological egoism denied the reality of such important human feelings as friendship, love, compassion, and gratitude. He also argued that there was no reason to try to reduce the diversity of human motivations to one simple thing. And he pointed out, as many have, that both humans and animals have been observed to act, instinctively for others sakes.

Early normative egoism is often associated with the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche whose ideas about freedom, the will, and the superman, certainly seem to support egoism, and have been used that way, but Nietzsche himself rejected egoism because, he said, being an egoist would have the opposite of the desired effect; it would set other people against you, which is bad for your own success.

The first philosophers to consider themselves egoists were Max Stirner and Henry Sidgwick in the 19th Century. But probably the most popular and controversial spokesperson for egoism was Ayn Rand, who set forth her arguments in The Virtue of Selfishness, and in novels such as Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Adapting some of Nietzsches rhetoric, Rand focused on rational egoism as a rejection of the sacrificial ethics of Christianity; she argued that it is wrong to sacrifice ones own interests for others because it is irrational: the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. Thus, to her, ethical and rational egoism go together. Her perspective owes a lot to Nietzsches rejection of traditional morality and glorification of the individual will.

Over the past 30 years or so, egoism has faced stronger opposition than before because of scientific research showing that (a) humans and animals do have altruistic instincts, (b) selfish decisions are often not in your best interests, and (c) that altruistic behavior is consistent with evolution. When we were evolving, living in small tribes, most people lived around their many relatives, so doing things for others benefitaltruismcould actually spread ones own genes!

Egoism has always been a controversial theory, and we have sketched some of its debates in the previous sectionssuch as whether it can be moral or not, and whether it needs to be.

Another challenge to egoism is whether its even logically possible. Several philosophers have pointed out that it leads to self-contradictions and irresolvable conflicts. For example, Joseph Butler writes that it may be necessary to act un-selfishly in order to receive benefits, which makes egoism self-contradictory. However, we can get around this paradox by just saying that egoism is acting for long-term benefit.

A bigger problem for psychological egoism is that some behavior just doesnt seem egoistic in any sense. Say a soldier throws himself on a grenade to prevent others from being killed. Its hard to say how that could be in the soldiers selfish interests! Hes not going to benefit from it in the long run, or even be able to enjoy the feeling of being a good person. Egoists might argue that the soldier is deceiving himself if he thinks he acted selflessly; perhaps he was sub-consciously motivated to avoid feeling guilty if he didnt sacrifice himself. But then again, feeling that kind of guilt depends on having non-egoistic motivations, doesnt it? An egoist could also argue that since the soldier made a free decision to jump on the grenade, he was, by definition, following his own desires. However, that argument seems like a cop-out; it avoids resolving the question of why the soldier did it.

The major controversy about normative (ethical or rational) egoism is, of course, whether it can be truly ethical at all, since almost all people agree that an ethical system must encourage us to act for the benefit of other human beings. The main points of debate are whether it is desirable or possible to act selflessly, and whether rational selfishness is or is not really the best thing for others. The answers to these questions depend on answers to many other questions: how interdependent are human beings? Is individual freedom more important than social stability? Is individuality an illusion? So, this debate will doubtless not soon be settled!

Ethics has to recognize the truth, recognized in unethical thought, that egoism comes before altruism. The acts required for continued self-preservation, including the enjoyments of benefits achieved by such arts, are the first requisites to universal welfare. Unless each duly cares for himself, his care for all others is ended in death, and if each thus dies there remain no others to be cared for. Herbert Spencer

In this argument for ethical egoism, Herbert Spencer, a 19th century British philosopher, seems to echo Aristotles original justification for some degree of egoismthat a person needs to take care of their own needs and happiness before they can take care of others. Often accused of inconsistency, Spencer was an egoist who also believed that human beings have a natural sense of empathy and should care for each other, although at the same time, he believed that altruism was a relatively recent development in humans.

What interest can a fond mother have in view, who loses her health by assiduous attendance on her sick child, and afterwards languishes and dies of grief, when freed, by its death [the childs], from the slavery of that attendance? David Hume

Hume, a famous opponent of psychological realism, here gives an example that demonstrates several of his arguments against egoism. Hume pointed out that human beings have certain innate non-egoist instincts, such as the compulsion of a mother to sacrifice herself for her children. And even if she does so, selfishly, in order to feel good herself, that doesnt explain why she dies of grief after her child dies.

Altruism is the opposite of egoism the motivation or practice of doing things to benefit others, without expecting any benefit for oneself. However, most of the debates about egoism and altruism are not about whether its good to benefit others or not, which almost everyone agrees on, but whether egoism or altruism are actually beneficial, or even possible.

Just as psychological egoism could be rejected on the basis that its impossible to prove peoples motivations, many philosophers have questioned whether it is possible to prove altruistic motivations either. As descriptions of human nature, egoism and altruism seem to compete on equal grounds; you can pretty much always argue that any action was really motivated by egoism or really altruism, but you cant prove it.

As normative philosophies, about what people should do, most philosophers agree that ethical behavior is behavior which is good for people in generalso you might assume that altruism should win automatically. But there are some pretty good arguments that altruistic action depends on egoist motivations; you might not help that old lady cross the street if you didnt care about feeling good about yourself. And egoists may argue that its immoral to decide whats in other peoples best interests. On the side of altruism is the universal belief that morality means being good to others and the evidence that empathy, compassion, and altruism are natural instincts.

Many popular films feature egoist villainssociopaths who pursue their own gain without regard for others. But Heath Ledgers Joker in Christopher Nolans Dark Knight goes further. Late in the movie he actually sets up a version of The Prisoners Dilemmaa scenario from game theory which philosophers have used to explore the egoism versus altruism debate. The Joker intends to prove to all that his view of human naturepsychological egoismis true. He believes that one or both boats will try to blow up the other one in order to save their own lives, according to the Jokers rulesbut they refuse to cooperate, seemingly proving that humans are not entirely egoistic. Throughout the film, the Joker represents the egoist view as he repeatedly exploits his enemies egoism. But in the end, Batman supposedly demonstrates that altruism is real by taking the fall for a politician he doesnt even likefor the good of the people of Gotham.

Both of the Star Trek films featuring Khan, Captain Kirks worst enemy, explore the consequences of egoist versus altruist views. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, we learn that Khans murderous anger towards humanity is partly a result of Captain Kirks earlier action of marooning Khan and his people on a then hospitable planetwhich later suffered an environmental disaster killing most of Khans people. This is a clear illustration of the ethical egoists claim that trying to act in others interests may be immoral. Furthermore, Kirks failure to check up on Khan on the planet suggests that Kirk was not really acting altruistically, but rather egoistically, supporting the views of psychological egoism. Meanwhile, Khan believes that he has a natural right to dominate, based on his superior intellect and strength, a view commonly associated with rational egoism and Ayn Rand. Of course in the end, Mr. Spock demonstrates altruism by sacrificing himself to save the rest of the Enterprise crew, repeating an idea clearly meant to prove that altruism is more rational than egoismthe needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Visit link:

Egoism: Examples and Definition | Philosophy Terms

'); //-->

One of the smartest people that ever lived, Albert Einstein, wasnt just a scientific genius; he was also one of the 20th centurys strongest peace advocates.

Einstein believed that, if there had been a stronger alliance of countries against fascism in the 1930s, the World War of the 1940s would have been prevented. Because of this, Einstein was a strong advocate of the abolition of war through the creation of a world government composed of nations that shared their military forces in order to prevent nationalist nations from starting wars. What follows are excerpts from some of his writings about peace

Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. You cannot subjugate a nation forcibly unless you wipe out every man, woman, and child. Unless you wish to use such drastic measures, you must find a way of settling your disputes without resort to arms.

If unrestricted egoism leads to dire consequences in our economic life, it is still worse as a guide in international relations. Only the absolute repudiation of war can be of any use here. Without disarmament there can be no lasting peace.

The opposition to this unquestionably necessary advance lies in the unhappy traditions of the people which are passed on like an inherited disease from generation to generation because of our faulty educational machines. Of course the main supports of this tradition are military training and the larger industries.

This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of the herd nature, the military system. That a man can take pleasure in marching in formation to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; a backbone was all he needed. How despicable and ignoble war is. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. Is it not terrible to be forced by the community to deeds which every individual feels to be most despicable crimes? Only a few have had the moral greatness to resist; they are in the true heroes.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. In the light of new knowledge, a world authority and an eventual world state are not just desirable in the name of brotherhood, they are necessary for survival. Today we must abandon competition and secure cooperation. Past thinking and methods did not prevent world wars. Future thinking must prevent wars.

Taken on the whole, I would believe that Gandhis views were the most enlightened of all the political men in our time. We should strive to do things in his spirit... not to use violence in fighting for our cause, but by non-participation in what we believe is evil.

The way to joyful and happy existence is everywhere through renunciation and self-limitation. Where can the strength of such a process come from? Only from those who have had the chance in their early years to fortify their minds and broaden their outlook through study. Only if the statesmen have, to urge them forward, the will to peace of a decisive majority in their respective countries, can they arrive at their important goal. It is not the task of the individual who lives in this critical time merely to await results and to criticize. He must serve this great cause as well as he can.

We have emerged from a world war in which we had to accept the degradingly low ethical standards of the enemy. But instead of feeling liberated from his standards, and set free to restore the sanctity of human life and the safety of noncombatants, we are in effect making the low standards of the enemy in the last war our own. Unless Americans come to recognize that they are not stronger in the world because they have the bomb, but weaker because of their vulnerability to atomic attack, they are not likely to conduct their policy in a spirit that furthers the arrival at an understanding.

Genesee Valley Citizens for Peace was established in 1972. For more information on the organization, go to http://www.gvcp.org. The preceding essay is the result of a collaboration among several GVCP members.

Read more:

On Albert Einstein's peaceful musings - The Livingston County News