3 Answers

  1. Just like everything else. In the philosophical world of arguments and arguments, any concept can be refuted, because, as a rule, there are as many rational arguments for as against.

    As for this particular example, it has been refuted by Marxists all over the world. For them, the idea of private ownership and personal ownership of the means of production is immoral, since from their point of view society is divided into classes, which means that collective morality and the interests of the group always prevail over the interests of specific people.

    There are a million arguments in defense of this position, as well as arguments against it. Ultimately, it remains a matter of choice, and rational arguments are the consequence and explanation of why the choice was made in this way.

  2. Depends on the subject.

    If the subject is a human being, he lives by an ethical law that is inherent in the human race from the beginning, albeit obscured, distorted in one way or another by our imperfection.

    If the subject is a brute, he lives by the law of the stable, rushes to the trough, lies in the mud and goes to ham.

  3. To refute or justify any Egoism by linking it in meaning is actually very simple and at the same time difficult. And there are even two ways to do this, the second one will not appeal to everyone. The basis of all selfishness is the desire to possess and greed. Of course, many people believe that greed is a phenomenon when a living being grabs more than it needs. However, there is a parallel feeling to it as an inability to share, which is called avarice. That's where any egoism comes from, whether it's ethical or reasonable. Having been born into the world, a person is absolutely devoid of egoism, but in the process of satisfying desires and not wanting to share them, he becomes a miser, at first he cannot share a breast, then toys. Growing up, the scope of avarice increases exponentially. The peak of avarice, which can be called reasonable, is the possession of his wife, which of course he can not share with anyone. Then there are children, a home and a person being in a community of the same reasonable egoists to become a patriot of their homeland, based on this, patriotism is the top-the top of collective reasonable egoism. However, you can still refute or justify your ethical or reasonable selfishness. If the desire to share causes you suffering, and coincides with morality, religious (within the ten commandments) or ethical, or from the point of view of Law, then such selfishness is justified and more or less implemented in all ecological niches:). And the second method also often happens, but without living enthusiasm, you can justify your unreasonable selfishness in one practiced way, this is to sacrifice. Sacrificing selflessly to the suffering can justify their unreasonable avarice. After all, you share the excess of what you have accumulated in the process of your greed. If it didn't exist, then you wouldn't have anything to share! In this non-traditional (moral) way, you can also justify your selfishness. Of course there can be manyBut, however, these two methods exist as a counterweight to them and are generally accepted and traditional

Leave a Reply