Another, famous example that maybe sums it up nicely:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." - Adam Smith
In other words, I expect the baker to not poison the bread he sells me not because it would be immoral to poison the bread, but because it would have bad consequences for him. That is why I think economics trumps ethics. Ethics are really just rules for "stupid" agents who don't understand why the rules make sense or what implications they have. Take the rule to not eat pig's meat - it made sense in the hot desert back in the day, when pigs were competing for the scarce food with humans and were transmitting their diseases. Probably some smart people figured that out and made up the rule (and were in the position to enforce it), that now billions of people are senselessly stuck with.
I think a society based on selfishness would be much superior to a society based on morals. With morals, there will always people who don't comply and mess everything up, who feel unsatisfied and create revolutions and upheavals. In a selfish society, things should be clear. For example, I don't think we should help the poor because we are morally obliged to do so. We should help them because otherwise they will end up lingering on our doorstep and trying to rob us (or also simply because it is a kind of insurance system, in case we become poor ourselves). In our current system, there is constant bickering about giving away too much money for social causes. In a selfish view, there would be no discussion - there would be a desired outcome (no robberies and beggars) and a means to achieve it. The only discussion left would be the best way to achieve the outcome (welfare systems? death penalty for throwing chewing gum on the floor? legalized abortions?...), and how much investment it would be worth to the individual. But those would not be philosophical discussions, they would be technical discussions.
Incidentally, it is one of the achievements of economics to show that selfishness can benefit everyone. There was actually an artificial life researcher who committed suicide when he learned of that, because he wanted to believe in true altruism. Such a shame.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." - Adam Smith
In other words, I expect the baker to not poison the bread he sells me not because it would be immoral to poison the bread, but because it would have bad consequences for him. That is why I think economics trumps ethics. Ethics are really just rules for "stupid" agents who don't understand why the rules make sense or what implications they have. Take the rule to not eat pig's meat - it made sense in the hot desert back in the day, when pigs were competing for the scarce food with humans and were transmitting their diseases. Probably some smart people figured that out and made up the rule (and were in the position to enforce it), that now billions of people are senselessly stuck with.
I think a society based on selfishness would be much superior to a society based on morals. With morals, there will always people who don't comply and mess everything up, who feel unsatisfied and create revolutions and upheavals. In a selfish society, things should be clear. For example, I don't think we should help the poor because we are morally obliged to do so. We should help them because otherwise they will end up lingering on our doorstep and trying to rob us (or also simply because it is a kind of insurance system, in case we become poor ourselves). In our current system, there is constant bickering about giving away too much money for social causes. In a selfish view, there would be no discussion - there would be a desired outcome (no robberies and beggars) and a means to achieve it. The only discussion left would be the best way to achieve the outcome (welfare systems? death penalty for throwing chewing gum on the floor? legalized abortions?...), and how much investment it would be worth to the individual. But those would not be philosophical discussions, they would be technical discussions.
Incidentally, it is one of the achievements of economics to show that selfishness can benefit everyone. There was actually an artificial life researcher who committed suicide when he learned of that, because he wanted to believe in true altruism. Such a shame.