The Argument on How Utilitarianism is a Superior Moral Theory than Ethical Egoism 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 …show more content…
in Rachels 65). So, we should have no considerations for the people who would be affected by our actions other than our selves. A commonsensical person can see how this could lead to several negative consequences and moral injustice. Take for example, a rapist who seeks sexual pleasure by forcefully acquiring it from his victims or the Joker who causes terror for the pleasure of watching the world burn (The Dark Knight). To the ethical egoist, since these actions are selfishly done for one’s own benefit, they are morally justified. This is irrational due to the idea that what separates us, human beings, from all the animals, or at least the noncomplex species, is that we usually care for our fellow peers in society and that we can reason based on that care. Any rational person would judge these actions as wrong since not giving value to this is almost as leveling humans with the animals of nature. Unlike ethical egoism, utilitarianism does count others in the equation of morality. Instead of acting selfishly, a utilitarian requires us to act “as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.” (qtd. in Mill, Utilitarianism.). There’s no superiority to one’s selfish desires simply because they are themselves. To the utilitarian, …show more content…
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
I will summarize her main argument, it goes as follows. The goal of life is to be happy. Altruism prescribes that we sacrifice our interests for the happiness of others. Therefore, altruism is incompatible with the goal of happiness. Egoism prescribes that we seek our own happiness exclusively. Therefore, ethical egoism is the correct moral theory. At the surface, this seems valid but Louis Pojman breaks down this argument. Pojman offers a critique with his four arguments against ethical egoism. Pojman starts with his inconsistent outcomes argument. This states that if everyone had their own belief system the world would be insane as everyone would be doing only what is best for them leaving the world chaotic. His publicity argument states that an egoist cannot express his egoistic ideas without harming his goal which is a contradiction. The paradox of egoism argument states that egoists would have to give up self-interest to maximize happiness, for example friendship. Lastly, the argument from counterintuitive consequences claims it’s always wrong to help others which seems wrong to most people. This leaves egoism with some major
On the other hand is also true that Utilitarianism may authorize the worst actions if it's still safeguard the welfare of individuals. Moreover it ends to ignore the identity of the individuals involved , their personal needs and the fact that among them there are differences.7
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
Throughout this paper I will argue between Mil (Utilitarianism) and Held (Care Ethics). Mil is a British Philosopher well known for his ethical and political work and Held is an American Feminist and Moral Philosopher. After reading this essay you will have a good view on what Utilitarianism and Care Ethics is and also what my concluding position is.
In conclusion, this paper has discussed two main theories regarding the ethical behavior of human beings. Kantianism is a theory based on duties, maxims, willing and the categorical imperative. Also, it focuses on the motivation of actions, has clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, Utilitarianism is based on the concept that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest overall utility and this will be the morally right action. Furthermore, it relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of the assessment.
We have Foucault, Guenther, and Camus and going to be talking in the perspective of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is defined as the morality of an act as judged by its utility, the greatest utility that it has for the most people. The greatest usefulness and act has for the most people. If I commit an act and it benefits a lot of people, if it has great utility for a lot of people, the most people, then it’s a good act. Utilitarianism has three parts one is only the consequences matter, two pleasure/happiness should be maximized, and three each person counts (impartiality). Utilitarianism is not ethical egoism because utilitarian seek the happiness of everyone, not just oneself.
Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Utilitarianism is a theory which states that the purpose of morality is to achieve maximal goodness in a society. It is consequentialist rather than deontological in that the moral value of ethical decisions are to be judged in terms of their effects, rather than the intrinsic properties of the acts themselves. Those effects are deemed good which generate the most pleasure or happiness, or which minimize overall pain. There are two classical types of utilitarianism which will be under our consideration: act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. 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.
In conclusion, it is apparent that universal ethical egoism has many arguments. Moreover, it is clear that this theory tends toward solipsism, a person's view that only he or she exists, and the omission of many of the deepest human values, such as love and deep friendship. In addition, it violates the principle of fairness and it prohibits altruistic behavior, which one would perceive as morally permissible.
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Utilitarianism is a movement in ethics which began in the late eighteenth centaury and is primarily associated with the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and was later adapted and fully developed by John Stuart Mill in the ninetieth century. . The theory states that we should try to achieve ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics. Teleological theories of ethics look at the consequences to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Utilitarianism is defined as a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of it consequences: specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and defended by James Mill. The theory says, that all the activities should be directed towards the accomplishment of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is impractical and very unrealistic because, it refuses to focus on the individuals values, morals, and happiness. Utilitarianism endorse risking ones life for the sake of other is not and in fact it rewards such behavior. Utilitarianism mentions that if the outcome of the one persons death saves many lives then therefore it is obligated to do so.
A moral theory should be one’s guide when deciding whether an action is either good or bad, wrong or right. There are many types of moral theories to choose from, but we will only focus on two: utilitarianism and ancient hedonism. These theories meet in their pursuit of something greater, for hedonism it’s personal pleasure while for utilitarianism it is happiness for the greater number of people. In this work, the differences and the similarities of utilitarianism and hedonism will be pointed out after explaining them separately.