Experience is valued on a scale of preference. There is no reduction to principles but instead value is imbued within each experience by the individual, not by some rational process but simply by a product of their being.

There is no precise "measurement" but instead a process of thought that one undergoes to commit to action that benefits them. There is no defined process of thought because this will change between each individual depending on their values.

An experience that is stable and works for an individual across a longer timescale is valued higher than others. What Im suggesting is not that we act on impulse but that we reject the values of others. If you believe that suggesting the individual should do what they value most instead of following the values of others is a simple statement, then you already partly agree with the foundation of what I believe in. However, regardless of its simplicity, this doesnt change its opposition to common moralities held today.

I suppose that your caught up on the word "guide". Ethics exists to guide the action of the individual, it concerns the creation of psychotechnologies that lead to preferred experiences. However, Im not offering any psychotechnologies here, since those are incredibly individual pursuits due to the individual nature of value. I cannot tell you how to best achieve a goal that I do not hold and have never thought about. The only claim Im making here is that ethics surrounds the individual, their value, and their action. However, I can create a model of ethics that can give some insights into what concerns it. Or to be a bit more neutral, Im questioning the relation of value and action and where that leads, and Im calling this ethics.

Egoism cannot give specific advice to people, since everyone holds seperate values. However, egoism can be used as a model to further the creation of ones own advice, and defines what ethics is actually about.

Also, your criticism was a bit vague so idk if your suggesting guiding action is impossible due to moral realism or what not. If thats the case then the above wont really matter to your argument and I'll need to provide something else in response.

In regards to objective or collective morals, none. In regards to individual action, everything.

All actions are committed by indviduals. There is no such thing as a "collective" outside of the individuals that compose it. Remove the individuals and the collective vanishs. As such, I dont care about such a pointless goal as "collective realisation". I have my values and you have yours, imagining a universe where we can act according to some doctrine and magically have all our values fuffilled is childish. There are tradeoffs in life, sometimes you have to hurt others to benefit yourself. Therefore, any doctrine must neccesarily designate some peoples values as more important than others. However, those who are left out have no reason to follow it or not create their own doctrines in turn.

In terms of what we can accomplish? We can create a framework for individuals to build a system that guides their action by designating what is within the realm of ethics.

Just because Im a moral anti-realist does not mean I have no values. I have values that I will defend equally as a moral realists will defend theres. However, the moral realist's view of morality is simply untrue and can only lead to bad decisions or deluded action based on some emotion of righteousness or disgust. As long as humans can come together under similar values, egoism will exist to act as a framework for the construction of a doctrine promoting values that truely match with their goals, not surface level emotionalism.

Im not sure what you mean by natural conditions. However, I will attempt to flesh out my belief further.

All labels are an attempt to categorise the world into discrete units. However, the world has no such units. This isnt an exaggeration. From states, to chairs, to electrons, these categories do not exist outside of our minds, regardless of there being something outside of our minds we can interpret as having the same effects as these labelled objects.

Morals and Aesthetics consist of categories of "good" and "bad", except there is no such thing. All values are fundamentally subjective, just as all other categories.

Theres a nice quote by nietzsche stating this:

"Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, saying "there are only facts," I should say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations..." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Also, your criticism was a bit vague so idk if your suggesting guiding action is impossible due to moral realism or what not. If thats the case then the above wont really matter to your argument and I'll need to provide something else in response. — Ourora Aureis

Going over the exchange back to the OP I see I'm latching onto "maximize", which I generally associate with mathematics, and so utilitarianism, and so measurement -- but I missed that you're going against that sort of thing. At least to explain why I asked about how you could measure experience: I now see you weren't meaning it as literally as I took it.

But then my second question remains relevant, I think: How can egoism serve as a guide to action?

Usually I'd say that if I'm doing what I want then I'm not really deliberating about what is good or moral or ethical. I'm already decided. It's when I have to make a decision that I start to wonder about ethics.

Though the better way to put the question is: How do you know what you want?