From Craig Biddle's Introduction to the new journal The Objective Standard:
"Altruism is not good for one’s life. If accepted and practiced consistently, it leads to death. This is what Jesus did. If accepted and practiced inconsistently, it retards one’s life and leads to guilt. This is what most altruists do. An altruist might not die from his morality—so long as he cheats on it—but nor will he live fully. Insofar as a person acts against the requirements of his life and happiness, he will not make the most of his life; he will not achieve the kind of happiness possible to man.
Egoism is good for one’s life. If accepted and practiced consistently, it leads to a life of happiness. If accepted and practiced inconsistently—well, there is no reason to be inconsistent here. Why not live a life of happiness? Why sacrifice at all? What reason is there to do so? In the entire history of philosophy, the number of answers to this question is exactly zero."
Also from the piece:
"On this view, a software developer who trades his product with others for a profit is thereby being moral. A volunteer social worker who gives away his time and effort for nothing at all is thereby being immoral. Likewise, a parent who values his child’s education more than he values a new sports car, and who forgoes the car in order to pay for the education, is being moral; a parent who values the education more than the car, but forgoes paying for the education in order to purchase the car, is being immoral. Similarly, a soldier who fights for freedom on the grounds that life without liberty is not worth living (“Give me liberty, or give me death!”) is being moral; one who fights in obedience to an alleged “supernatural” being’s commands is not. And so forth."
Seems to me this whole argument rides upon the "values" in question. What if the parent values the car more than the child's education? Seems that's perfectly acceptable under this worldview. But that example is a paper tiger -- what about harder choices, such as providing financial support to a drug addicted family member, or having an abortion, or getting a divorce? This argument seems to go "do what your values tell you to do," which skirts the tough issues entirely. What if the social worker feels that giving away their time and effort "for nothing" is consistent with their values? Or if the soldier feels that obedience to an "alleged 'supernatural' being" (dismissiveness aside) is consistent with their values?
My concern is that this exaltation of "egoism" and an assertion of "absolute reality" becomes an easy rationale to dismiss other's perspectives as objectively incorrect, and therefore ignoreable. It also provides a supposed moral rationale for an individual to do whatever they like. This paradigm provides further fuel for the already ascendant human tendency to devalue the pain of others in relation to one's own pain, by saying that such an instinct is not only right but a moral requirement.
As to this quote: "Why sacrifice at all? What reason is there to do so? In the entire history of philosophy, the number of answers to this question is exactly zero."
I think Kant might disagree.