I assume a true ethical egoist, one who believes we ought to act only for our self interest, would state that we should actively try to have an impact on other individuals, if this impact would retroactively have some positive effect on the agent. If we for instance assume the politician, having to promote X or Y to get elected, this politician could actively pursue to achieve promise X as this might positively help the lives of the politician’s voters, and thereby secure a possible re-election, a better office, or even just a higher regard of their own moral/political status.what, if any, is then the incentive to actively try to have an impact on other individuals?
You mean from the standpoint of an ethical egoist? A complete egoist would of course only try to impact others when he sees the opportunity to personally benefit from it. It is to be assumed that only a real advantage would count as a benefit and not just any amusement that a person may get from using others as playthings. But how are we to distinguish a real benefit from an imaginary one? Many people certainly get a lot of enjoyment from wielding power over their fellow humans and if you count that as a legitimate befit, anything should be allowed including bullying and torture.What, if any, is then the incentive to actively try to have an impact on other individuals? — Alejandro
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.