Michael G. Barnhart
\nKingsborough Community College\/CUNY<\/p>\n
Egocentrism has always been viewed as profoundly unethical, and thus a reason against ethical egoism. This paper examines the arguments for such claims and finds them somewhat wanting. It then considers the positions that egocentrism is psychologically untenable and that it is philosophically unstable. Though it appears true that egocentrism is a psychologically unappealing position for many, it isn\u2019t universally so and may be adaptable to some dystopian situations. However, the claim that it is philosophically unstable may be more promising, and the paper turns to Owen Flanagan\u2019s Buddhist-inspired discussion of the issue in his book The Bodhisattva\u2019s Brain<\/em>. Flanagan argues that the notion of anatt\u0101<\/em> offers an important reason for not taking oneself seriously and thus fatally undermines the meaningfulness of privileging one\u2019s own interests or concerns over others. The paper examines this reasoning, but concludes that Flanagan\u2019s interpretation of anatt\u0101<\/em> may be too weak to support his refutation of egocentrism. The paper concludes by suggesting a more extreme interpretation of anatt\u0101<\/em> that Flanagan rejects and argues that it might both do the job and better resist philosophical criticism than its weaker cousin.<\/p>\n Read article<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ISSN 1076-9005 Volume 20, 2013 Impermanence, Anatt\u0101, and the Stability of Egocentrism; or, How Ethically Unstable Is Egocentrism? Michael G. Barnhart Kingsborough Community College\/CUNY Egocentrism has always been viewed as profoundly unethical, and thus a reason against ethical egoism. This paper examines the arguments for such claims and finds them somewhat wanting. It then considers … Continue reading How Ethically Unstable Is Egocentrism?<\/span>