The CTAA article discusses different ways to evaluate moral arguments. One that stood out to me was egoism. Egoism is an argument form where any action by any person is moral as long as it creates the most possible pleasure for that individual. The article states that egoists are selfish, and selfishness is regarded as a moral flaw, therefore egoism is not moral. I think that egoism is a good argument form however.
If everyone is doing what is best for them, then each person creates their own happiness. If everyone creates happiness for themselves, then everyone will be happy. This also is less stress on each individual because they only have to be concerned with one person- themselves. If a person cannot do actions that creates the most happiness for themselves then that is their fault. Therefore, Egoism is a good moral argument form.
I was really surprised by egoism as an argument form because I assumed that it is immoral and a bad argument style. However, I was convinced from the article’s reasoning. Even if an individual seeks to only maximize their own happiness, this can increase the total amount of happiness in the world. Thus, egoism is weirdly a moral argument.
“If everyone is doing what is best for them, then each person creates their own happiness. If everyone creates happiness for themselves, then everyone will be happy.” This makes sense theoretically, but this leads to a culture driven by egotism. There are countless situations where this logic just falls short. We are individuals but we live in a society made by many many people. Egotism is NOT a good argument style when put into practice similar to socialism.
While reading this response, I will have to agree with what Megan replied because I was thinking the same thing. It will eventually lead to culture that will be driven by egotism and the result of that would be very problematic.