Jhenifer asked:

What is (if there is one) a complete and accurate definition of Ethical Egoism? James Rachels and
some philosophical dictionaries define it using the terminology of the "promotion" of one's self interest
whereas Ayn Rand claims that it relies on the "achievement" of one's self interest. This distinction is
very important when evaluating the arguments because one places emphasis on the process and the
other on the conclusion or result.

============

There is, indeed, a big difference between the two formulations of ethical egoism.

It seems to me that Rachels is right and Rand is (as usual) wrong and confused. First, I don't
understand what Rand means. Does she mean that unless you get what you want you are not an
ethical egoist, or does she mean that if you get what you want you are an ethical egoist, or both. That
is, is achievement of one's self-interest a necessary condition, or a sufficient condition or both, of
being an ethical egoist?

Let's consider the first, that it is a necessary condition. That means if you strive to get something, but
happen to fail though bad luck (you have an accident) then that means you are not an ethical egoist.
That's peculiar don't you think? It means that something that is an accident could prevent you from
being an ethical egoist. Let's go to the second formulation: that is, if you get what you want you are an
ethical egoist. Again, the same objection: suppose you get what you want purely by accident. A rich
uncle dies and leaves you a great deal of money, and you want to be rich. That alone makes you an
ethical egoist. I don't think so.

What Rachels would say is that it is the motive, not the achievement, which makes you an ethical
egoist. If you think that the promotion of only your self-interest is a good thing, then whether or not
you succeed or fail to get satisfy your self-interest which, as we saw, may be only a matter of luck,
you are still an ethical egoist. So, Rachels is right, and Rand, as usual, wrong.

Kenneth Stern