Morality...?

[Lacquer Head]

Rationality, acceptance of facts, and rejection of prejudices are also egoist pursuits. It just changes which need people work to fulfill. So say I want to do something to satisfy some lower tier need, playfulness, sex, something basic, carnal. I know it's utterly idiotic for me to act on this particular desire, so I don't. How have I made an egositic chocie here? Not being an idiot gains me more self gratification than pursuing my mindless wants. I gain feelings of pride in my rationality and my ability to suppress animalistic desires with it. My rationality is the very thing I value most in this word, and I would be willing to go to great lengths to preserve it.

So you're saying that's the ONLY motivator? That's...well that's just silly.

[Heartless Angel]

Angel, no you're wrong.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for it when thus far all of your rebuttals have been mindless naysaying, emotional outbursts and moral judgments. If you'd care to pose an ARGUMENT of some sort, I'd be more than happy to read it, analyze it, and to the best of my ability consider its worth.

Don't generalize all our motivations like that.

Yes, I know, it hurts your feelings and impedes your morals, so it must be wrong. People often have problems with generalizations involving people, because it ruins the idea that you're all special snowflakes. but that is not because there is anything wrong with generalizations themselves. HASTY generalizations made without sufficient evidence can be a problem, but we use generalizations all the time in reality, generalizations are responsible for an overwhelming majority of human knowledge. All objects with mass have gravity. That's a generalization, I have just lumped all objects in the universe into one category. The thing is, my statement was 100% true, regardless of its generalizing nature. Why does nobody care about such a generalization? Because I haven't asserted anything about people. Well let's try a generalization involving people now. All people will at some point in time, die. I have now made an assertion lumping all of humanity into the category of mortals. Do you find anything illogical about this? I'll assume not, because no matter how much it makes you sad that you're not a special snowflake, there are certain things which are simply true of every element of a set. Generalizations are not a bad thing, and I've certainly not been hasty with mine. If you can provide me with even one example of an action for which I can not find an egoistic motivator, I will happily retract my assertion. It literally only takes one example to disprove me, and yet thus far I have not been disproven. That tells me I'm not too far off the mark.

We can think consciously and rationally. Our actions aren't motivated and driven by subconscious drives all the time. They are to extend, but we can influence and control them.

Subconscious: Noun, the totality of mental processes of which the individual is not aware; unreportable mental activities.

If you mean to say we can control our subconscious, you're wrong by definition. If you mean we can control our actions and that that somehow disproves egoism, then you're just willfully ignorant. Influence and control are the result of desire. All you're suggesting now is that we can override one desire with another, desire is still the sole driving force.

If we were to do that all the time, that would mean we wouldn't be able to cope with reality and would be always using defense mechanisms to satisfy our ego ideal, like Freud puts it.

What about controlling or not controlling our actions would impede our ability to cope with reality? There are lots of animals without a shred of rationality that get by just fine, having no trouble dealing with reality. In fact most of them do it better than we do, because they just don't think about it. There are people like me who run literally every thought through a filter of logic before allowing it to be implemented, effectively 'controlling' every action, yet I have no trouble at all coping with reality.

And reality check, we ARE always using defense mechanisms to satisfy our egos. If you are unwilling to accept such a simple truth, then there is literally no further reason for me to argue with you, because reason will not reach you.

As to sacrifice, we do it, because sometimes we want to do something for the greater good and realize that just by living out our lives that greater good might not be fulfilled. It has nothing to do with our insecurities with facing and coping with everyday life or failing to achieve something.

Let me go ahead and bold the important part here.

As to sacrifice, we do it, because sometimes we want to do something for the greater good and realize that just by living out our lives that greater good might not be fulfilled. It has nothing to do with our insecurities with facing and coping with everyday life or failing to achieve something.

Because we want. That is egoism. The action is not driven by the 'greater good' which is a silly subjective and arbitrarily defined concept to begin with, but since it isn't the driving force, it really isn't necessary for me to explain how normatives and logic work yet again. The action is driven by want. We act because we desire action. That is egoism. Egoism has nothing to do with insecurities or coping mechanisms. Once again your argument is based on nothing but your own inability to understand the thing you're trying to critique.

~ AUTO-MERGED POSTS ~

So you're saying that's the ONLY motivator? That's...well that's just silly.

I happily await the example which I can't find an egoistic motivator for. That's all it takes to disprove me, and as of yet, it has not been presented.