Q&A: Egoist
Egoist
Question
In the column on altruism, you gave an example of a person who performs commandments not for their own sake (for the sake of reward), and you said that this is a "no-exit situation," meaning that it is impossible to persuade him to perform commandments for their own sake. If that is the case, how can we know that he is not right? After all, ostensibly there is no reason we should not be able to persuade any person (assuming, of course, that he is rational, etc.) of the truth, right?
Answer
Exactly as he assumes that a policy of maximizing reward is the correct and justified one, you can assume the opposite. The fact that you cannot prove to him that he is mistaken does not mean there is no justification for forming a position of your own (he also cannot prove that you are wrong). By the way, there are other ways to persuade him even if you cannot prove it to him. In my books I explain that this is what rhetoric is for (as distinct from logic).
Discussion on Answer
For example, by describing to him in literary terms people who act for its own sake in various contexts, and leading him to find within himself identification with such figures and with the way they act. Sometimes that is already present within the person, and then logical arguments can also persuade him. If he understands that there is a human virtue in altruistic action and just has not noticed that this contradicts his instrumental outlook. In such cases, logic too can be helpful.
Out of curiosity, how would you use rhetoric to persuade such a person?