James Rachels describes ethical egoism as a normative theory with the idea that each person pursues or "should pursue exclusively his or her own self-interests." Rachels explains that we have no moral duty, but to focus only on ourselves. Rachels notes that, given the core selfish belief, it does not actually mean that one should maintain a distance from activities that advance the interests of others, nor does it guarantee that one should reliably do what one wants; on the contrary, one should oppose the implementation of a desire if the activity does not benefit a person in the long term. This does not state that it is our duty to pursue the interests of others as well as our own, but the more radical statement that it is our duty to pursue our own interests. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Rachels presents three arguments in support of ethical egoism. The first argument presented by Rachel is that it is better if each individual looks after their own personal interests. In other words, each person is a better judge of his or her own personal interests, and it is not possible to determine the best interests of another person. “Looking after” the interests of others is “self-defeating.” By helping others, we make them less willing to help themselves and, in this way, we actually cause them more harm. This contrasts with ethical selfishness. It says that we should not act in certain ways (ways that we think encourage individuals) because acting in this way causes them harm - that is, it implies that we have an obligation to help (or at least not to hurt) others, the which is exactly what ethical egoism denies. The second argument is that altruism (acting to benefit others at the cost of oneself) requires the individual to sacrifice his or her own individual goals. Yet the individual is the only thing that has value. In this way, sacrificing oneself for the good of other people does not “respect the integrity of individual human life.” Altruism fundamentally does not require the denial of one's principles, it does not require such a great sacrifice. The third argument proposes that, in the long run, helping others is to our greatest advantage. In cases like these, we have a duty to help others, but only simply because doing so benefits our own interests. Regardless of whether this is valid in most cases, it is not valid in all cases. Occasionally doing what (our intuitions tell us) is the "right" thing requires real sacrifice. In these cases, ethical egoism does not capture our intuitions. Rachel's favorite argument basically states that there is no way to distinguish another group as more important than another without there being hard evidence justifying differential treatment. Racism would be an arbitrary doctrine, Rachels suggests, because there is no evidence or facts to justify why a group is treated differently based on their race alone. Even more important is the idea that we should care about the interests of others as much as we care about our own interests. The same example used at the beginning is repeated: people dying of hunger. There are people who are very well fed and there are others who starve to death every day. But ultimately others shouldn't go hungry. We as human beings always put our interests before others, of course, but thinking about the interests and well-being of others is always good. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Supporting Arguments Ethical egoism, especially Rand's,.