To better understand this theory, it’s best to look from a different perspective of self-interest- The Argument from Paradigm Cases, The Best Argument for Ethical Egoism, and The Libertarian Argument. According to Ethical Egoism, if someone secretly killed another person because they were competing for the same promotion, or secretly stole food because they needed to eat, this is considered a moral duty because it is in their best interest (Ethical Egoism 107). These examples are extreme which lead to the devil’s advocate point of view called The Argument from Paradigm Cases. This argument states if an ethical theory requires killing or theft, just because such actions maximize self-interest, then that theory cannot be true (Ethical Egoism 107). …show more content…
According to The Best Argument for Ethical Egoism, the three main points are the following: if a person is morally required to do something, then you have a good reason to do it, if there’s a good reason to do something, then doing it must make you better, and lastly if you are morally required to do something, then doing it must make you better off (Ethical Egoism 112). The book uses the example, keeping a secret, which is a reason to do one of the following points stated above (Ethical Egoism 113). According to the Libertarian Argument, our only duty is to respect rights and promises. Respecting rights is against the definition of Ethical Egoism. The Egoists believe the Libertarians have no duty to stick to the agreements and they keep their promises and secrets which is against Egoism (Ethical Egoism 112). An egoist would say that they could break promises and secrets if it meant they were doing it in their best interest. If revealing a secret meant you could save a life and no one would know you let it slip, I believe many people would agree with Ethical Egoism with this example. Depending on each situation, an action or opinion could agree or disagree with Ethical Egoism based on their own evidence