The Good

As you may have noticed from previous posts I consider the ultimate standard of good and evil to be human life. In the case of personal ethics that would be one's own life. If I value my own life I must then see as good those things which would help to protect and preserve my life. The bad is that which would destroy or be destructive to my life.

But this is a simplified definition. A starting point on which to build and not a catch-all end-all definition.

For example I must first recognize that humans are a social species and that being able to live in peace with other humans is a good thing. That is to say that most of our lives would be severely deprived without other humans. Some people even go insane without other humans. There are always exceptions but by and large being able to live as a part of society is good.

If I want to live in peace with other humans it can therefore only be okay to kill other humans in very extreme and unique circumstances. The main possible circumstance being when another person is about to kill you and the only way to stop them is by killing them.

The other important thing to consider is one's own mortality. Since I cannot live forever do I consider it important to leave some sort of legacy? In my own personal case I believe having children so that I can at least have some genetic contribution to the future is incredibly important. But it is also important because I believe our children will carry some part of ourselves into the future and into future generations. Beyond that children make us value our own lives more. They bring joy to the present, and help us to rediscover joy and delight in the little things we take for granted.

Thus because I value myself, I value my children. Because I value myself, I value other people. Because I value myself, I value my family. Because I value myself, I value human life. All of these contribute both to my own well being and to the future of humanity. Thus we must have some way to choose between these values.

For example I would not sacrifice my children to myself, but I would also not sacrifice myself to a member of my family simply because they were a blood relative. I believe I would sacrifice myself for the lives of my children if I believed it were necessary to do so. But I would try to find an alternative first. My standard is thus: if choosing between a future well being and a present one I must prioritize the future.

My children are my future in many ways so in most circumstances I would prioritize their well being over my own, if and only if I had to choose between the two. What I mean is that I do not consider the two to be mutually exclusive, and thus I expect it would be rare case in which I had to chose between the two.

Finally whether I would sacrifice my life to save the life of someone who is not a member of my immediate family would depend entirely on the circumstance. For example if it were a situation in which I would have to choose between the destruction of myself or all of humanity certainly I would choose to save humanity. This is because living without the whole rest of humanity would really suck, and I don't suspect I would last long regardless.

However if sacrificing my life would mean everyone in the world became a thousand dollars richer I would gladly say, "Too bad So sad, you'll have to get by with what you currently have."

I dispute the idea therefore that egoism must be some sort of monomaniacal system that cannot value other human beings and could never involve trading one's own life to save others.

Rational self-interest does not equal instant self gratification. There is no reason to assume it means sacrificing others to oneself or even sacrificing long term interests to short term ones. On the contrary as a rationally self-interested person who holds her life as her highest value I must consider how terrible my life would become without other humans, and how valueless it would become without a future.