The objective of this paper is to analyze the theory of ethical egoism beginning with an introduction to ethical egoism is, its principle of conduct, and an explanation how it differs from psychological egoism. Following will be a discussion of how the arbitrary principle of certain beliefs is the same for ethical egotism which subsequently conduces the arbitrariness of the theory. Lastly this paper will explain why it is unsuitable as a moral theory due to its groundlessness and failure to meet the minimum conception of morality.
Typically most would say that people have a duty to others as well as themselves. However for egoists this is not the case, for them the interests of others are unimportant and irrelevant. This application of self-interest
…show more content…
However it is agreed upon on the existence and need for morals, thus the call for a minimum conception of morality. Every theory must have this minimum in order to be considered a true moral theory. In essence, it must “guide one’s conduct by reason while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by what one does” (Rachels p.14). This poses a problem for ethical egoism as a moral theory since ethical egoism does not meet either of the requirements. Ethical egoism is a mistaken theory in that it leads to logical contradictions (Rachels p.87). If one were to protect one’s interest that would require one to prevent another from carrying out their duty to their self, it would be both right and wrong to do so. However that is not logical and self-contradictory, thus not would not be basing conduct on reason. To reiterate, the theory of ethical egoism states that one should put his or her own needs before others, this fails the second part of the minimum conception of morality. Furthermore in advocating that one treat others in differently when there are no factual differences is unjustifiable and makes this an arbitrary doctrine. Since there is no relevant factual difference between oneself and others, thus no real logic or reason, then the needs of others are equally important, which goes against the main principle of conduct for ethical egoism. Yet still the theory would not see the need to regard other individuals who may be affected by one’s actions, which again fails the minimum
Most people agree with the quote “sometimes you have to do what’s best for you
Adam Smith’s moral theory explains that there is an “impartial spectator” inside each of us that aids in determining what is morally and universally good, using our personal experiences and human commonalities. In order to judge our own actions, we judge and observe the actions of others, at the same time observing their judgments of us. Our impartial spectator efficiently allows us to take on two perceptions at once: one is our own, determined by self-interest, and the other is an imaginary observer. This paper will analyze the impartiality of the impartial spectator, by analyzing how humans are motivated by self-interest.
Rand’s basic premise of ethical egoism is that everyone should look out for themselves and themselves only. What Rand is really saying is that human beings don’t really matter unless they can be used in some way to further our own self-interest. In other words, we have no obligation ...
The human ego feeds off of self-interest, constantly wanting praise and validation. Morals, existent in all humans are a prime target for the ego. Moral superiority satisfies the ego. Joan Didion criticizes the human tendency to disguise their sanctimonious actions as moral imperatives in her essay, “On Morality”. Didion expresses distaste for the ego, describing it as a “monstrous
Egoism is the philosophical concept of human self-interest and the relationship between ethics, altruism, and rationality (Robbins). Psychological egoism and ethical egoism are the two concepts or positions that explain how one is or ought to be motivated to obtain their self-interest. The difference between ethical and psychological egoism is that the former deals with how a person should act and the latter deals with a universal concept practiced by all. With the theory of psychological egoism, selfishness proves it to be false; thus, can true ethical egoism be possible?
As a result, it is immoral even though we want to protect our own is a natural behavior. Only concern on our own interest is very selfish. Egoism may suggest a way for us to protect our own interest but it is not the best way for people to behave.
Psychological egoism is a theory about the nature of what motivates us as humans to act for things. Psychological egoism suggests that all our behaviors in everyday life are motivated by selfishness. In other words, it suggests that every action or behavior or decision of every person is motivated by self-interest and not our need
This topic is important in helping us as philosophers get down to the roots of why we do the things we do, answering questions about the human motive and the philosophy behind reasoning we cannot explain. Psychological egoism provides an answer to philosophical questions like “Why do we do the things we do?” It was perhap...
If one wishes to be a psychological egoist, then one needs to explain why people do certain actions that appear to be genuine acts of 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
With the development of modern society, many people say that the society has become miserable, and people only care their own profit. The self-interest is becoming the object of attacking. Thereupon, when we mention self- interest, people always mix up the concept of self-interest with selfishness. As we all known, the idea of selfishness is, “Abusing others, exploiting others, using others for their own advantage – doing something to others.” (Hospers, 59) Selfish people have no ethics, morals and standards when they do anything. At the same time, what is self – interest? Self- interest can be defined as egoism, which means a person is, “looking out for your own welfare.” (Hospers, 39) The welfare people talk about is nothing more than
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 is a theory which is normative. The theory is based on favors, praises and motivation. The main factors considered in this theory are the actions of person that result to impact individually. People are believed to act according to their interest. The argument is that, we are bound up due to our own happiness, interests, desires and hopes. There is essence of behaving to our will, and center to things that make difference in our lives. This egoist approach says that good action is which fits for an individual, for example if one is hungry and there isn’t food and decides to eat chips, then that is good according to him and he deserves to do it. Applying this theory to the case of Delshondra who is sick we will consider what he thinks is
Philosophy has been a field of study for centuries. Some philosophers have developed ways to determine what is ethical and what is not. This has led to several normative ethical theories describing how people are ought to live a moral life. Some of the most prominent of these theories have set the criteria for morality in very unique and peculiar ways. Two of which are the ethical egoistic theory and the utilitarian theory, each seeing morality in its own distinctive way. By comparing and contrasting the view these theories pose on morality and by analyze how each stands in some of the world’s most modern day issues, one can understand why utilitarianism is a
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.