Abstract

Typically, egoism is formulated as the thesis that each of us ought to perform some action if and only if our so doing would maximize our own self-interest. This formulation is not unambiguous, however. We might interpret it as a Kantian assertoric hypothetical imperative. Perhaps some defenders of egoism have conceived their view in just this way. So understood, however, egoism fails at once to be very controversial or very interesting. Egoism as I understand it is the view that each of us ought to make our own happiness our sole, ultimate aim. It is evident that this "ought" is not that of a hypothetical imperative. In this paper I argue that rational egoism cannot be formulated in a way that is both consistent and egoistic.