Then I will discuss the requirements of ethical egoism and the difference between ethical egoism general principle of self-interest and the notion of “whatever one wants.” I will then briefly suggest that Ethical Egoism is plausible but show the theory cannot be plausible in the same argument. Furthermore I will discuss the argument against ethical egoism that proves the theory to be arbitrary from the general principle concerning the treatment of others. Lastly I discuss why this arbitrary concept poses a problem for moral theory and reasons in ethics. Ethical Egoism states that we should pursue our best self-interests of the long run. Morally right actions are those, which benefits our-self.
Theory Description 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.
Ethical Egoism A rear assumption is that the needs and happiness of other people will always effects on our moral ethics. If we accept this assumption, we think that our moral ethics are balancing our self-interest against that of others. It is true, that “What is morally right or wrong depends not only on how it makes us feel, but also how it affects others”. The idea of each person ought to pursue his or her own self -interest exclusively to do in his life time for others is known as Ethical Egoism. 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.
Ethical egoism is the position that moral individuals ought to do what is in their own self-interest. Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism in which suggests that moral people have an obligation to help others. Ethical egoism does not, require moral individuals to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation. These are a few underlying points presented in both Ayn Rands and James Rachels’s pieces on Ethical Egoism. Ayn Rand deals with a more selfish approach whereas James Rachels believes that people should look out for one another.
Two objections to utilitarianism will be examined, as well as Louis Pojman’s responses to those objections in Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. It will be shown that Pojman presents an adequate defense of utilitarianism, and that utilitarianism succeeds as a worthwhile moral theory. Act-Utilitarianism is the thesis that “an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative” (Pojman 110). One conspicuous problem with the thesis is that it suggests that correct moral actions will often clash with our intuitions about basic moral norms. For example, Pojman refers to Richard Brandt’s criticism in which he points out that the act-utilitarian seems to be committed to helping the needy above one’s own family, repaying debts only if there is no better use for the money, and ending the lives of those who are a drain on others (Pojman 110).
Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
Deontological ethics on the other hand, argue that duty and the nature of an action outweigh the consequences, emphasizing that making the decision to act... ... middle of paper ... ..., simply because it is the right thing to do. Someone may or may not step up to claim it. But I have rationally and logically concluded that by placing myself in the shoes of the person who lost it, I could not in good conscious keep it without at least making every effort to locate its rightful owner. Ethical decisions like this one are not easy but this is what the philosophical standard of human welfare or ‘well-being’, encompasses. For though it is inevitable that culture, religion, law, and our own personal experiences will have an influence to some degree when it comes to making ethical choices, this philosophical standard takes us out of our self-serving relativity long enough to consider the dignity, value, rights, and needs of others as well.
This subsequent move toward, ethics is not that the normative/descriptive difference vanishes; instead, it simply thinks that a theory of moral character ought to be appropriately Social psychology explains to us what ethical mediators are like, because asset approaches build character and its mechanism is the foundation of ethics, it looks to be mainly suitable that such moves take the psychosomatic information on nature and its apparatus sincerely. This longing for sensitive principles to a degree clarifies the current resurrection of virtue principles; however it in addition leads to various disputes to the design that mediators embody vigorous ethical characters. Deontological techniques of ethics are more often than not contradictory to general techniques as a number of individuals carry on that the moral worth of ones actions is completely self leading from the consequence of an exploit. Rather than centering on penalty, deontological techniques highlight obligation as the foundation of ethical worth. In this method, deontological presumptions emphasize a standard of accurate act, or the right, over the good.
Consequentialist ethical theory suggests that right and wrong are the consequences of our actions. It is only the consequences that determine whether our actions are right or wrong. Standard consequentialism is a form of consequentialism that is discussed the most. It states that “the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good.” It means that an action is morally correct if it has little to no negative consequences, or the one that has the most positive results. A consequentialist will assess both the positive and negative effects of an action before taking it.
“Utilitarianism proposes a clear and simple moral criterion…[It] is interested in the consequences of our actions: If they are good, the action is right; if they are bad, the action is wrong” (Rosenstand, 2009, p. 225). In other words, consequences should direct our actions and move of us to make the correct the choice. It’s an approach where you have more control over the outcomes, even though you cannot have complete control over them. In this approach, people are also held more accountable for their actions. The basis of morality in utilitarianism is empirical, where shared experience helps determine what is the best way for society to act.