Topic 1 Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism and subject each to critical scrutiny in detail. Compare and contrast ethical egoism with virtue theory. Egoism is a view that states that what a person wants is somewhat relevant to what humans actually do. There is two main types of egoism: psychological and ethical. These two views are very similar; because of this they can easily be interchanged. It is important to be able to recognize the dissimilarity of these two views. Psychological egoism is the view that describes what humans are motivated by. By definition, it states that the actions of humans are merely to fulfill their wants and desires. This means that the actions taken by humans are never to fulfill someone else’s desires but always to fulfill their own. Also this view doesn’t state that the actions of people are right or wrong, it just simply explains why said person is motivated to act in certain ways. For example, if Jack goes on a walk, the only description of why he did this is because it fulfills his desire to do so. As for Ethical egoism, there are a few differences. Ethical egoism is a prescriptive thesis that tells us how we ought to behave. Simply states, humans should always be motivated ultimately by self-interest alone. For example, if Jack wants to steal something to benefit himself, he should do so because it is the right thing for him to do. The main argument against psychological egoism is that people do in fact act to fulfill other’s desires. For example, Jack was playing video games and his mother asked him to help her with the dishes and he does so. He is doing this not to fulfill his desires, but to fulfill hers; he was already sitting down doing something that fulfilled his desires a... ... middle of paper ... ... a mechanism of social control of one’s actions. Finally, the biggest controversy between these separate views is that Kant believes that the justification of one’s actions is an appeal to reason while Mill’s an appeal to desire. Mill and Kant are both extremely endowed philosophers that argue extremely good points. Although their views differ in many different aspects, they lay a good foundation for belief for others to build on or to critique. Topic 3 Discuss ethical relativism at length, identifying reasons why people are drawn to the theory and whether those reasons are good ones. Distinguish between the diversity thesis and ethical relativism and whether the latter can be inferred from the former. Raise several objections to the theory and give a final summation of all the various considerations and your verdict on the overall effectiveness of the theory.
...places a person’s dignity and honor before life, while Mill places society’s happiness before all else. For Kant, capital punishment serves to preserve the dignity of an individual, while for Mill, capital punishment is used to protect society’s overall happiness. If it were up to you, which side would you take on capital punishment? Kant and Mill raise good questions and points in their perspective arguments, but there are too many contradictions for me to defend on either one of their points of views. I stand against capital punishment.
Ethical Egoism is an idea that we should only care about ourselves and not about anyone else. Many philosophers and ethicists disagree with this idea because it has many issues with it, especially morality. Even though many people disagree with this theory, there are people that think that it is true. The three statements that they say to agree with this theory is; that altruism is self-defeating, Ayn Rand’s argument, and that ethical egoism is involved and explains commonsense morality. However, many philosophers have counterarguments with all of these explanations and they have their own arguments that contradicts the idea of Ethical Egoism. The three arguments they have are; Ethical Egoism supports wickedness, Ethical Egoism is inconsistent,
John Stuart Mill famously criticized Immanuel Kant and his theory of the Categorical Imperative by arguing that,
Opposing Kant, Mill suggests that goodwill does not have the power to be key element by itself. He suggests that in order for action to be moral, that action must be followed with consequences that cause happiness. Following are the few basic arguments of both philosophers. Let's start with an example discussed in class. Pretend you are a shopkeeper.
Ethical egoism is a normative ethical position that focuses morally right action that promotes the individual own self interest. It states that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer can be considered as ethical. It differs from psychological egoism in that because ethical egoism says we ought to be selfish while psychological states we should be selfish (Frankena, 1973. 18). The theory in itself says we are hard-wired to be selfish and focus on what type of actions promote use and is self serving. The moral appraisal of things assumes our curiosity, necessitates and even contentment of others should factor in a stability of what we perceive morally and what is in our self-interest. What is morally right and
Ethical egoism is arbitrary and puts ourselves above everybody else for no apparent reason. Ethical egoism splits everybody into two groups, ourselves and everyone else, and says that we are the morally superior. This brings up the question, why are we, ourselves, morally superior to everyone else? Failing to answer this question, means that the ethical egoist has no rational reason to choose ourselves over anybody else. So, with similar rational, it could just have been that everyone else is morally superior to ourselves. The ethical egoist seems to be completely arbitrary in this decision. This theory doesn’t even know why it is putting us, ourselves, above everybody else. One can compare this to a racist who says white people are more superior to blacks (Rachels). Several decades ago they would rationally argue that blacks are intellectually inferior and a threat to the world peace but today there is substantial amount of evidence to refute these claims. Now the racist has no reasons for the racial discriminations and white people and black people are equal, meaning that being racially against black people is arbitrary and has no rational reasoning. Indeed, ethical egoism is just as arbitrary as racism is, but once again, utilitarianism
Ethical egoism is a claim about what is morally good or bad, whereas psychological egoism is a claim about human psychology. Psychological egoism is a controversial claim as it implies that human beings are not capable of genuine altruism.
• Once more, the ordinary science’ proves itself as the master of classification, inventing and defining the various categories of Egoism. Per example, psychological egoism, which defines doctrine that an individual is always motivated by self-interest, then rational egoism which unquestionably advocates acting in self-interest. Ethical egoism as diametrically opposite of ethical altruism which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if sacrifices own interest. Also, ethical egoism differs from both rational and psychological egoism in ‘defending’ doctrine which considers all actions with contributive beneficial effects for an acting individual
Life is not a contest between each and every person, but a test. Just because someone believes that always making a decision that is in the best interest of themselves is right doesn’t mean that they are out to make the decision that worsens others around them. Personal ethical egoism is the idea that people should act in the best interest of themselves. I believe in altruism and that ethical egoism is an unacceptable theory because it’s proven to be inconsistent and incoherent.
Freud’s theory of psychological egoism also says we have the ability to make decisions, though our thought process is what ultimately restricts us. The id, which we all possess, is our most primal wants and desires, yet we don 't necessarily act on what the id tells us to act on. Our ego and super ego, helps us to differentiate between right and wrong. We choose to listen to this part of our mind that tells us our actions have consequences and stealing is wrong. One could easily do these things anyway if they wanted, choosing to ignore their
Egoism is a theory that is about people caring only about themselves. They say that their self-interest and happiness should be the main goal of anything that they do. The Egoists would most likely say that it would be alright to torture the man because it is in their best interest.
Michalon, Max. “Selflessness in the Service of the Ego,” American Journal of Psychotherapy. Vol.55, No.2, 2001. Web. 21 May 2015.
Egoism is a teleological theory of ethics that sets the ultimate criterion of morality in some nonmoral value (i.e. happiness or welfare) that results from acts (Pojman 276). It is contrasted with altruism, which is the view that one's actions ought to further the interests or good of other people, ideally to the exclusion of one's own interests (Pojman 272). This essay will explain the relation between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. It will examine how someone who believes in psychological egoism explains the apparent instances of altruism. And it will discuss some arguments in favor of universal ethical egoism, and exam Pojman's critque of arguments for and against universal ethical egoism.
Ethical egoism can be a well-debated topic about the true intention of an individual when he or she makes an ethical decision. Max Stirner brings up a very intriguing perspective in writing, The Ego and its Own, regarding ethical egoism. After reading his writing some questions are posed. For example, are human beings at the bottom? Following Wiggins and Putnam, can we rise above our egoism and truly be altruistic? And finally, if we are something, do we have the capacity to rise to a level that we can criticize and transcend our nature? These questions try to establish whether or not we are simple humans, bound to our intrinsic nature, or far more intellectually advanced than we allow ourselves to be.
To what degree is a rational agent allowed to pursue his own goals or to choose one action over another? Both Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill answer the question of what makes a person free. Two different conceptions of individual freedom and autonomy are present by them and for this reason these philosopher differ on why it is that freedom and self-governance should be valued. In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant puts forward a normative conception of freedom and autonomy where by one has the capacity to deliberate and give himself laws. It is based on this claim that he makes his argument that autonomy should be valued because it is the sole principle of our moral law. In On Liberty, Mill propounded that freedom was doing as one pleases, and unlike Kant promoted a personal account of autonomy wherein an individual is encouraged to decide for one’s self one what ever course of action they desired- often regardless of a particular moral. The good consequence of progress was the core reason that Mill felt that one should value this type of autonomy.