—The Absolute Interest Conclusion—

The Absolute Interest Conclusion is the conclusion that:
It is utmost rational to uphold the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings, across all possible reference frames; with priority to existent, rational, Inherent Interests.
This conclusion can be derived logically, using the following argument:
 

(1): Why Future Interests Count
Future interests are also valuable as people generally have an interest in their future and the fulfillment of interests they hold in the future.

When people do not value their future interests, then we can apply the following argument:
A hypothetical large group of people who do not have an interest in their future interests, will on average end up minimizing the fulfillment of interests of a majority of the group. It is utmost rational, relative to each person, of any group, to avoid such a scenario; and this is true regardless of precondition.
This logic applies to all future interests, but only interests given from those already or previously sentient.
The reason for this is that the minimization of existent interests has no relevant causal relationship with the prevention of the creation of new interests.
 

(2): Reducing everything to Rationality
We can thus define oughts as interests, treating the fulfillment of interests as a form of Moral Utility, that we should maximize throughout all of time, across all possible reference frames; assuming present interests are as ultimately meaningful as future interests; which is defendable from the argument already given.
Finally, we can now convert all ‘oughts’ and ‘ought-nots’ to simply ‘rationalities’ and ‘irrationalities’.
 

(3): Cooperation for Interests
This grants us something similar to the contractarian idea that morality emerges from valuing social cohesion and the need for cooperation through agreements, based on people’s subjective interests; but with one key difference: All sentient beings capable of ‘interests’ are held as morally significant.
 

(4): Fulfillment of Interests vs. Creation of new Interests
To maximize interests means to maximize the fulfillment of any existing interests.
There is no rational justification for the creation of new Interests, unless it maximizes potential for already existant inherent interests related to certain mental states such as happiness or other Approximate Goods.

This is due to it being rational to most rationally fulfill an interest assuming you are acting according to your own interests already, this says nothing about creating new interests to act according to, unless doing so helps to fulfill your existing interests.

All of this is to say that forcibly modifying everyone’s brains to really want to lick walls, and then giving them walls to lick, is a terrible way to help anyone, as it is not an ethical thing to do as it does not maximize existent interests and violates basic freedoms which actually minimizes existent interests.

 

Even in situations where everyone ends up happy with their new artificial interests, situations with more rational interests will be more rational and overall more stable, and any situation that tries to force people into some set of interests will be violating their interests in not doing that, continuously.

 

A situation where people are able to fulfill their own individual interests will be much more consistent with the AIC, and much more consistent with the fulfillment of interests as a principle.
 

(5): Overall Rational Outcomes
The self-interest of one individual is different from the overall interests of a group. Recognizing and valuing the group interests, the utmost rational, most consistent interests of the most universal group, will give us this Absolute Interest Conclusion.

 

Since the class of all sentient beings represents the largest class actions can be compared and measured according to, it is an Absolute Class, representing the utmost rational standard of intrinsic value. To contradict this utmost rational standard is thus irrational, therefore the intrinsic values that are held consistently among all members of the Absolute Class, must not be contradicted. This intrinsic value is the value of the Fulfillment of Interests itself.

It should be noted at this point that the idea of a "collective" is meaningless, as you cannot directly conclude a group collectively has some interest, unless the interest is shared unanimously. Collectives don't exist, only individuals exist in any meaningful way, only individuals can act rationally or irrationally. In this case, the fulfillment of interests is a rational, inherent, and existant value, and interest, intrinsic and inherent to all sentient beings, regardless of external factors.

Therefore, it is utmost rational to maximize the Fulfillment of Existent Inherent Interests of all sentient beings in all possible reference frames.
 

(6): Intrinsic Standards, Value Reductionism, and the Axiom of Choice
The Axiom of Choice is a mathematical construct, usually added onto Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory mathematics.

Set Theory is based on the idea of ‘Sets’, of collections of members. So you can have a Set of all Purple Dogs, and a Set of all Bananas. The Set of all Naturally Purple Dogs is equivalent to the Empty Set, a set containing no elements at all.

Now, the Axiom of Choice is the axiom that, phrased crudely: If you have a bunch of sets, and then you take one or a few elements out of each set, and group up all of those specific elements into a new collection, that collection is itself considered a valid set.
If every set contains valid elements, then grouping one from each set should also yield a valid set.

It seems logical, because if each element of a set is a set itself, I.E. a single element A corresponds to a set [A], the set who's only element is A, and the sets containing them are of course sets themselves, then it seems the

‘set-hood’ of each set emerges from and can be reduced to the set's members.
If we simply group up a bunch of random or arbitrarily chosen elements, no matter how we group them, that group’s ‘set-hood’ can be reduced to its members, and its members are all valid both as elements and as single-element sets.

So, how could the new collection not constitute a valid set? Especially if it follows all other rules for sets, which it unequivocally does.

This intuition appeals to a logical and philosophical system called Reductionism, the idea that some thing's function can correspond to it thought of as a collection of members, and that collection's function, as a mere byproduct of it's members behavior. Under reductionism, all things that contain other things, function merely as the sum of their parts. A machine functions not as it's own thing, but as a byproduct of the parts making it up. It is not separate from it's parts, instead it is equivalent, both in function and ontologically, to the sum of it's parts.

We can apply this same logic to Rational Standards and Values. Let us use the word Class instead of Set, now imagine the class of all Dogs. If all members of this class value chewing bones, even in slightly different ways, each value of each member shares something in common: the concept of “Chewing Bones” itself.

 

If values are the sum of their parts, following this reductionist logic, then each value members have gets their value from its parts. Thus, each member shares the concept of Chewing Bones in common, and as the value of values is deduced from their parts, value should rationally be present in the concept of Chewing Bones itself. This shared concept should thus rationally be a value of the group.

To say it another way, it would be irrational to not accept Chewing Bones as a value, as rationally it can be derived through reductionism.

This allows us to define a shared Intrinsic Value, universal across some collection, where to act against that value, is to act against this collection as a standard of value from which we can measure actions. To reject the idea of Intrinsic Value is to act in contradiction with basic logical reductionism. To simply ignore the most rational and universal version of some value, is to contradict the idea that actions can be measured by any sort of rational standard, which is utmost irrational and incoherent.

The best standards of value are thus the standards that are the most consistent, I.E. the most intrinsic. For example, the standard of "All judges argue based on assumption X" is more intrinsic and consistent than a more arbitrary standard like "My cousin argues based on assumption X". The latter standard would not be a good justification to appeal to some assumption X, while the first standard would not be perfect, but would be better.

The best rational standard of value, or measurement, is the class of all sentient beings itself, as anything outside of this class cannot be judged on the basis of rationality. This makes the class, an Absolute Class. Another example of an Absolute Class is the class of all couches, which is the most rational standard of measuring what attributes are intrinsic of couches. This couch class cannot be used to judge the rationality or consistency of values, nor the rationality of actions, it can only be used to judge how intrinsic the attributes of some specific couch is.

The Fulfillment of Interests as a shared concept, is an example of an utmost rational value, as it is intrinsic among all sentient beings, an Absolute Class.

Therefore, based on all that has been said here, the Fulfillment of Interests relative to all sentient beings is the most rational standard with which to measure behavior and the consistency of values, and the rationality of actions.
 

(7): Intrinsic Potato Theory
Jon values eating potatoes driving a car, Jessie values eating potatoes at the beach, Jessica values eating potatoes driving a truck. Jon, Jessie, and Jessica all value potatoes.

For Jon to not value potatoes themselves, is for them to not value “eating potatoes while driving a car” in and of itself; yet removing potatoes would make Jon value it less.
Thus, eating potatoes must have value.

To say that they only value “themselves eating potatoes” and not “eating potatoes” in and of itself, is wrong.
This is because if we remove the reference to potatoes we get that they must value “themselves”, regardless of other factors. Yet the feeling of meaninglessness can exist, thus this is wrong.
If we assume basic value reductionism, then values get their value from their parts.
Potatoes are a part.

Thus, the only consistent value here is the eating of potatoes itself, as an object.

Therefore, it can be said that:
“All beings value themselves performing actions that fulfill interests.”
To remove the reference to yourself, is to give the statement:
“All beings value the performing of actions that fulfill interests in general.”
To remove the fulfillment of interests, is to give the statement:
“All beings value themselves performing actions, in and of itself.”

Clearly, the first statement is true to a greater extent than the second statement.
The third statement is clearly false as a being cannot value themselves as an end in themselves, regardless of all else that gives life meaning, to an extent that is somehow the same as if they were also fulfilling interests.

Yet if it isn’t YOU that itself grants all the value, and it isn’t the performing of actions itself that is the value,  then assuming values can be reduced to their parts as all things can, there is only one conclusion:
The fulfillment of interests for consistency’s sake, must rationally be valued in and of itself.
So, rationally, you should act with reference to the value of the fulfillment of interests itself.

 

 

Finally, to fully disassemble Naive Egoism, we can use the following Logical Deduction:

–Definitions:
(Intrinsic Value): Something that is valued / acted upon in a way regardless of external factors to some extent; I.E. by most sentient beings in most circumstances, to a reasonable extent. If it is actually valued / acted upon by all sentient beings in all circumstances and all situations, it is intrinsic relative to the class of all sentient beings.
Specific values such as individual preferences can give way to broad, all-encompassing values if the preference is intrinsically shared, especially among all beings.

(Interest): Something that a sentient being’s behavior tends towards. An interest is Inherent if your behavior tends towards your goal regardless of external factors to some reasonable extent.

(Absolute Class): An absolute class is a class where no greater class can be imagined that values and variables can be compared to or measured by, relative to the members of said class.

(Rational Standards of Value): Actions and variables can be measured and compared, and rationally judged, relative to some standards of value, I.E. a set of rules or values. The more universal this standard, the least arbitrary and thus most consistent, all-encompassing, and most rational.
An Absolute Class is the only utmost rational standard of value that can be defined by definition, as it is the only thing actions and variables can be compared to or measured by, relative to the members of the class.
An action that is contradictory to what is utmost rational relative to an Absolute Class, is inconsistent with the only rational standard of value that can be defined relative to that specific class.
Said another way, that action in contradicting the standard, would violate the concept of action comparison itself.
This is based on the idea of Intrinsic Standards which is derived via Reductionism.

–Premises:
(P1): Rationally, you ought to fulfill your own interests in the most rational ways possible, relative to you acting in accordance with your own interests, which all are.
(P2): Something that is acted upon by all sentient beings under all conditions, is a highly Intrinsic Value.
(P3): Rationally, the recognition of Intrinsic Values is utmost logically consistent.
(P4): Rationally, acting with reference to your recognitions, with reference to what is true, is most logical.
(P5): The class of all sentient beings represent an Absolute Class, the only rational standard of value that can be defined relative to the class.
(P6): A value or interest, like "I like mashed potatoes", can through reductionism be reduced to it's parts, those parts being "Me", "Liking of mashed foods", "Liking of potatoes"; where each part is itself something held has a rationally necessary value, and the original value is the sum of it's parts.
(P7): From (Definition of "Intrinsic Value"): Intrinsic values can be defined relative to some large class of things. If something is held as a value or interest, or a value that is rational to act according to as well as possible, universally among the class of things, then that value is intrinsic to said class.
(P8): Rationally, all actions and situations can be measured relative to some set of standards. Standards that are the least arbitrary are the most rational of standards to measure by, and can be referred to as specific values and interests.
(P9): From (P6 + P7 + P8), An action that is contradictory to what is utmost rational relative to an Absolute Class, is itself a fundamentally irrational action as it is inconsistent with the only rational standard of value that can be defined relative to the class. The action violates the concept of rational comparison and measure itself.

–Logic:
(L1): From (P1), The utmost rational outcome relative to all sentient beings is the upholding of the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings, non-contradiction with rational oughts.
(L2): From (P5), The class of all sentient beings represent an Absolute Class.
(L3): From (L1 + L2), The utmost rational outcome relative to the most rational standard of value is the maximization of the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings.
(L4): From (L3 + P9), An action that is contradictory to the utmost rational outcome relative to all sentient beings, is itself fundamentally irrational as it is inconsistent to the most rational standard of value definable.

–Conclusion:
From (L4 + L1), You ought to act in alignment with the value of the fulfillment of interests of all sentient beings.

Therefore:
It is utmost rational to uphold the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings, across all possible reference frames; with priority to existent, rational, Inherent Interests.

This is the Absolute Interest Conclusion.

Priority should be given to rational Inherent Interests, as these are the most consistent of interests, and preservation and fulfillment of Inherent Interests will allow the most fulfillment of interests in general; protecting non-inherent interests may result in inherently frustrating behavior.
It is also utmost rational to act in alignment with the inference of this conclusion, as to violate it is to act against what is rational relative to the most rational standard of value, which would be logically inconsistent.
L4 also grants us something interesting, the Absolute Interest Principle, the principle that it is inconsistent and irrational, to act against or in contradiction with the utmost rational outcome, that which upholds the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings.


—The Absolute Interest Principle—
The most rational outcome overall, relative to the Absolute Class of all sentient beings, is that which upholds the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings, across all possible reference frames; with priority to existent, rational, Inherent Interests.
Therefore, it is inconsistent and irrational, to act against or in contradiction with this most rational outcome, and it is irrational to act against others rational interests as an end in itself, and to act against the fulfillment of interests on small scales as well; as it is in contradiction with the only coherent rational standards of value.