Ethical Egoism

Do ethical egoists really believe what they say? More to the point, should they? I must admit that there is a pretty powerful intuition driving ethical egoism--the doctrine that says that we should only pursue our own interests--but that egoists often go astray in pinning down why this should be so. Here's an incorrect way to argue for it: my interests count more than yours. Suppose for a moment that your interests do count. Could a reasonable person then go on to assert that any other person's interests counted less simply because their's were not yours? Could an interest being mine really make any difference to the value of those interests? To see why this is implausible, consider the following argument: though your new Honda Accord is qualitatively indistinguishable from my new Honda Accord, my Honda is worth more because it is mine. I have a hard time believing that you could convince a prospective buyer to pay more money for your car on those grounds! Notice, too, that if this argument really did work, the other person with the Honda Accord could make the very same argument for why her car was more valuable, which would make the egoist's argument self-defeating (remember, the argument was supposed to be for the conclusion that my car is worth more than another's car; if another can use the premises of the argument to support the conclusion that it is not, there is something faulty with the premises).

What the egoist should say is that, typically, the individual is in the best position to protect and promote their interests, and so when it comes to practical action, I should look after my own interests first because I am in the best position to achieve them. But such a view does not entail that other's interests are less important or valuable, nor does it imply that in all cases I should only pursue my interests (since there may be cases where I am better able to promote the interests of others than I am my own).