Desirist Mottos
1. I have suggested as the desirist motto: “Figure out what you want.” This can sound egoistical (concerning oneself only with one’s own welfare) and egotistical (assuming oneself is the most important person in the world). But, as I have pointed out countless times, desire is not inherently self-centered; one can have a solely altruistic desire as much as a solely selfish desire. (Whether as a matter of empirical fact most people’s desires are self-centered is another question, but I can argue against that too. But even if true, it would hardly count against an ethics that it conforms to reality!)
I would now
like to suggest another way that the “you” can be understood (benignly). When
we make a moral judgment or feel morally guilty, it seems like we are the one
doing that. And of course we are in a sense. However, Kelby Sandoval has
suggested to me that these judgments typically reflect the judgments of others –
of one’s society, or of one’s friends, etc. Thus, what one is actually doing in
such cases is mirroring the views of others: unreflectively reflecting,
to make a pun.
So what desirism
is advising is that one wrest control of one’s own psyche by figuring out what you
yourself want. My hunch is that, in freeing oneself of unreflective submission
to the moralist judgments of others, one will rid oneself of both guilt and
judgmentalism, and hence of “should” or “ought” in general, and then be in a position
to know what you yourself actually want. This is not egotism; it is autonomy.
2. I have also suggested as the desirist motto: “Live rationally.” But this too needs to be understood in the way intended. Rationality can itself be a moralism when it is taken to decide things categorically, universally, absolutely. This is the presumption when, for example, a “rational philosopher” refutes someone’s contention by formulating a counterexample. For example: “Do not lie” may be offered as good advice. But then the philosopher says: “What if a madman wielding a hatchet asks if your brother, who you know to be at home, is at home?” Does this rationally debunk the advice? Only if one is the sort of rationalist who believes that ethical advice must be categorical, exceptionless, etc.
What I
mean by “rationally” in offering amoralist advice is simply: “Research and reflect
on the reasons pro and con whatever confronts you.” Then, whatever results
will be equivalent to what you want* (as in the first motto), which is
to say, what you are motivated to do, which is to say, what you will do, other things
equal. That is the sum total of ethics as I now conceive it.
* or believe or feel etc., in the broadest understanding of amoralism
or nihilism.