to show how the study exposed the inherit rational selfishness of the average person.
If that’s supposed to be a reference to Kant, your professor was severely misinterpreting it. If not, it’s probably referencing some later theorist who was in turn referencing Kant (and severely misinterpreting it).
The rational egoist thought experiment imagines a society composed entirely of perfectly rational, completely egoistic people. Kant argues that they would all agree to abide by certain rules, in exchange for the guarantee that everyone else abides by those rules as well.
Being perfectly rational, they know that this is best for themselves; and being completely egoistic, they agree to it not out of altruism, empathy, or abstract ideals, but because concretely, it benefits them to do so.
The thought experiment is not:
Intended to describe reality
Intended to describe how things should be
Intended to encourage people to be selfish
What it is intended to do, is provide a rational basis for an argument that everyone should treat others the way that they themselves want to be treated.
Kant builds upon this thought experiment to describe the categorical imperative: “act only according to maxims which you believe should be universal.” In other words, don’t do things that you’d be upset if someone else did!
It is effectively a secular basis for the same thing as the “Golden Rule”: not “because Jesus said so,” but because “life is objectively better when we treat each other this way.”
Of course, people who don’t care about philosophy typically cut me off before I’ve got more than a sentence and a half out. So then they assume whatever the rest of it is supposed to be, based on their own ignorance, bias, and predisposition. So they hear me talking about “rational egoists” and think I’m arguing in favor of narcissism, or they hear “categorical imperative” and it either sounds like gibberish to them or they think I’m trying to be domineering. Neither of which are the case, but they never let me get enough words out to explain it to them, and even if I do, they only half listen and still make assumptions anyway.
It’s why talking about philosophy in person never goes well. Even in a philosophy class (most people there are just there for the elective anyway; they think it’s all bullshit and act all smug towards anyone who takes it seriously).
At least online, I can get all my thoughts out. Maybe people still don’t read it all, but they can, and that’s better than when I get interrupted in the middle of my second sentence in person and then no one knows what I was going to say, and anyone then gets to impose their own assumptions about what my point ultimately was going to be.
Of course, even online people will ignore critical points and take things out of context, and sea lion and strawman their way to scoring points. But at least on the fediverse most people recognize that and the downvotes usually reflect. Usually.
Anyway, I digress. I guess it was my turn to rant.
But anyway, it’s the same species that brought us philosophy, and it’s the same species that rejects it. Humans aren’t monolithic, and philosophers have always been sidelined and ridiculed (read Book VI of Plato’s Republic to see how he describes societal views of philosophers at the time; it’s not much different from today).
But these days, there’s this overcorrection of anti-elitism, and absolute inclusivity at the expense of basic standards. You barely need to be literate to get into college, and you can easily get a passing grade without ever engaging with the material. And anyone who takes it seriously is viewed as an elitist ans a try-hard.
It really degrades the value of the discussion, in the one place where people should be able to expect to have an intelligent philosophical discussion: in a philosophy classroom.
Without philosophy, we have no why, only how.
We wouldn’t even know how. All of the modern sciences are predicated on earlier philosophy. Science itself is predicated on philosophy of science. Enlightenment-era science were known at the time as “natural philosophy.” The scientific method was first developed by philosophers. Empiricism itself was first developed by philosophers.
There is literally no academic discipline that doesn’t go back to philosophy, if you trace it back far enough and don’t simply stop when you reach the point which you’re predisposed to think of as “the beginning.”
!["Helpful" [Super-Fun-Pak Comix]](https://lemmus.org/pictrs/image/d4835f80-c0e2-4970-b129-bfbe62561af2.webp){kind=link}
If that’s supposed to be a reference to Kant, your professor was severely misinterpreting it. If not, it’s probably referencing some later theorist who was in turn referencing Kant (and severely misinterpreting it).
The rational egoist thought experiment imagines a society composed entirely of perfectly rational, completely egoistic people. Kant argues that they would all agree to abide by certain rules, in exchange for the guarantee that everyone else abides by those rules as well.
Being perfectly rational, they know that this is best for themselves; and being completely egoistic, they agree to it not out of altruism, empathy, or abstract ideals, but because concretely, it benefits them to do so.
The thought experiment is not:
What it is intended to do, is provide a rational basis for an argument that everyone should treat others the way that they themselves want to be treated.
Kant builds upon this thought experiment to describe the categorical imperative: “act only according to maxims which you believe should be universal.” In other words, don’t do things that you’d be upset if someone else did!
It is effectively a secular basis for the same thing as the “Golden Rule”: not “because Jesus said so,” but because “life is objectively better when we treat each other this way.”
Of course, people who don’t care about philosophy typically cut me off before I’ve got more than a sentence and a half out. So then they assume whatever the rest of it is supposed to be, based on their own ignorance, bias, and predisposition. So they hear me talking about “rational egoists” and think I’m arguing in favor of narcissism, or they hear “categorical imperative” and it either sounds like gibberish to them or they think I’m trying to be domineering. Neither of which are the case, but they never let me get enough words out to explain it to them, and even if I do, they only half listen and still make assumptions anyway.
It’s why talking about philosophy in person never goes well. Even in a philosophy class (most people there are just there for the elective anyway; they think it’s all bullshit and act all smug towards anyone who takes it seriously).
At least online, I can get all my thoughts out. Maybe people still don’t read it all, but they can, and that’s better than when I get interrupted in the middle of my second sentence in person and then no one knows what I was going to say, and anyone then gets to impose their own assumptions about what my point ultimately was going to be.
Of course, even online people will ignore critical points and take things out of context, and sea lion and strawman their way to scoring points. But at least on the fediverse most people recognize that and the downvotes usually reflect. Usually.
Anyway, I digress. I guess it was my turn to rant.
One of the main reasons I hate this species. Philosophy is CRITICAL.
Without philosophy, we have no why, only how. It all loses meaning quick, when you end up working for a human slaughterhouse.
Username does not check out!
But anyway, it’s the same species that brought us philosophy, and it’s the same species that rejects it. Humans aren’t monolithic, and philosophers have always been sidelined and ridiculed (read Book VI of Plato’s Republic to see how he describes societal views of philosophers at the time; it’s not much different from today).
But these days, there’s this overcorrection of anti-elitism, and absolute inclusivity at the expense of basic standards. You barely need to be literate to get into college, and you can easily get a passing grade without ever engaging with the material. And anyone who takes it seriously is viewed as an elitist ans a try-hard.
It really degrades the value of the discussion, in the one place where people should be able to expect to have an intelligent philosophical discussion: in a philosophy classroom.
We wouldn’t even know how. All of the modern sciences are predicated on earlier philosophy. Science itself is predicated on philosophy of science. Enlightenment-era science were known at the time as “natural philosophy.” The scientific method was first developed by philosophers. Empiricism itself was first developed by philosophers.
There is literally no academic discipline that doesn’t go back to philosophy, if you trace it back far enough and don’t simply stop when you reach the point which you’re predisposed to think of as “the beginning.”