The Pros and Cons of Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is a doctrine that suggests that the ethical principle to follow is one which is in one’s own self-interest. It is a deeply debated topic and an extensively held normative theory. The ethical egoist wonders the reason for considering another people’s interest and what he stands to gain. This essay touches on the pros and cons of ethical egoism and suggests a rule of thumb to follow when handling situations.
In simple terms, ethical egoism directs one’s attention to ventures and activities that would bring the most interests or profits. In another light, it could be said that morality serves to encourage self-interests. That is to say that every time one is morally mandated to do something, doing such promotes self-interest. It is then safe to say that ethical egoism is perception based; one’s view determines the outcome, it is not factual. It is subjective. Russ Shafer-Landau, a renowned Professor of Philosophy, in his book The Fundamentals of Ethics summarizes his approach to the pros of ethical egoism thus:
If you are morally required to do something, then you have a good reason to do it.
If there is good reason for you to do something, then doing it must make you better off.
Therefore, if you are morally required to do something,
…show more content…
These advantages of ethical egoism together with the disadvantages should be weighed per circumstance and moral codes should be followed when taking decision for no two circumstances are exactly alike. In conclusion, having examined the consequences of the benefits and disadvantages of ethical egoism, I can say that ethical egoism seems to have a strong influence as to why individuals make certain decisions. Ethical egoism is not bad in itself, for one saves himself to save others. An individual cannot thrive if they stifle their needs to help
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.
We have studied the two major theories that answer the question, “who should I be?”. These theories are egoism and altruism. In this paper, I will argue that the correct moral theory lies in-between the theories of egoism and altruism.
Morality can be separated into many entities, one of which being one’s willingness to personally sacrifice for someone else. One’s own mind may factor into one’s decision when put in a difficult situation, a situation as extreme as putting your own well-being on the line for someone else’s. Many people, when asked if they would help others at nearly any cost, would automatically answer yes; however, when faced with this type of hardship, one, more often than not, does what is in their self-interest. That, however, does not define whether one should help others or not. One is morally obligated to sacrifice their well-being for the benefit of another’s.
Notably, Ayn Rand held this view. “This holds that people should do or ought to do what is in their (long term) self-interest” (Eby 3). Some advocates of normative ethical egoism find it unethical to require a sacrifice of self-interest through the belief that this hinders freedom and initiative. Applying this theory to the autonomous vehicle scenario, the car would save the driver and passengers at all cost. In this case, the driver would regard their own life so highly that they disregard the injury their actions would cause others. A self-driving car acting out of the same self-interest theory would be programmed to hit the group of pedestrians, so long as it guarantees the survival of the vehicle and its
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
In other words, ethical egoism states that there are objective moral facts and an action is morally good if and only if it promotes my personal happiness and it is morally wrong if and only if that action hinders my personal happiness. Apart from Ethical Egoism there is another topic to be known clearly, it is called Psychological Egoism. Psychological Egoism It is the claim that each person, in fact, pursues his/her own happiness.
In every aspect of our lives we have a choice that can determine our dishonorable effort
• 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
Psychological Egoism is a claim that one’s own welfare is the governing aim that guides us in every action. This would mean that every action and decisions humans make come with an intention for self-benefit, and personal gain. The fundamental idea behind psychological egoism is that our self-interest is the one motive that governs human beings. This idea may be so deep within our morals and thought process that although one may not think selfishly, the intention of their action is representing to a degree of personal gains.
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.
Egoism is the act of pursuing a particular course of action that is driven by 'sel...
The problem with ethical egoism is that it doesn’t match our common sense morality, this can be explained by the following: Normally, people decide which moral theory is right depending on their moral intuitions and on their ethical judgments and in return,...