Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical egoism and morality
Moral egoism vs. utilitarianism
Ethical egoism and morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical egoism and morality
The theory of Ethical Egoism “claims that what is good is whatever an individual thinks is good for herself or himself with concern for anyone else except to the extent that person or persons may benefit them in the short term and long run. What is right, then, is any decision or action that brings about what a person believes is good for himself or herself only (University of Baltimore, 2017). In other words, ethical egoism promotes one’s personal interest and the disregard of others. We only do what makes us feel good. Furthermore, those who support this theory believes that people generally are the best judges of what is their own interest. Given the scenario of “The Lottery Ticket” and seeking advice from a selfish egoist person, would be my first mistake based on my virtues. This person would advise me to lie to my neighbor regarding the lottery ticket. As stated, an ethical egoist person is self-centered and selfish and only think of their personal interest. So in the case of the winning lottery ticket, it would make sense for them to suggest that I keep the money. As I’m sure he would further say, who would know but you and me? If I would keep the winning ticket, I know the egoist person would have his hand out once I cashed in the ticket. This type of person is not offering advice for free. Remember, he's trying to make me feel good and in return he will …show more content…
Advantages are, “a person will have a sense of identity; their personal needs will always be met and live by what makes a person different is what makes him strong.” By way of contrast, some disadvantages are “it could destroy relationships, an egoist person would not care what others think of them and if everyone had an egoist view they would be working against each other” (Lombardo,
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.
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.
An egocentric attitude can be seen in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. Dostoyevsky's young Raskolnikov is staggeringly arrogant. Raskolnikov commits a murder and a failed robbery in the story. His journey in overcoming his ego can be seen through his initial crime, denial of failure, and acceptance of mistakes.
Ego is a self-maximizing choice. Egotism is roughly defined as self-centeredness and conceit, especially represented in writing or conversation. Men showed a fair amount of narcissism in the early 1900’s, and this was represented in the writings from that time. Ego entails one person thinking that the world revolves around them, and that they should be the center of attention at all times. In the novels The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald and Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, the authors portray the antagonists, Tom Buchanan and Curley, to be extraordinarily egotistic and domineering, which had a negative effect on the relationship the men had with their wives.
Ethical Egoism A rear assumption is that the needs and happiness of other people will always affect our moral ethics. If we accept this assumption, we think that our moral ethics balance 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 that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively to do in his lifetime for others is known as Ethical Egoism.
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 considers the best outcome for the decision maker. From an egoist perspective the most favourable outcome for the teacher to do is minimise the stress and conflict of possible outcomes in his/her life. It is therefore in the teachers’ best interest to not upset the principle, to align a similar view to her and not accept the offer of further promotion of funding.
As long as you are alive and your mind functions in and through the body, ego will arise and exist. This ego or pride is not permanent and unquestionable reality. It is a temporary experience; it is only lack of knowledge that invests it with permanency. It is a concept; it is lack of knowledge that elevates it to status of reality. Only enlightenment can bring this wisdom.
A disadvantage to emotivism is that it only argues for what a person’s attitude is towards the subject. However, an advantage to emotivism is a way to stand up for yourself and your beliefs. According to Holmes, "Every individual should seek always and only his or her own good." If people could use egoism in a way to love others, instead of loving themselves so much. The world would be a much better place. The scriptures say we must love others as we love our self. Most egoist are not able to use their beliefs in that way. It is all about them and not about others, which is a huge disadvantage.
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.
Psychological egoism, a descriptive claim about human nature, states that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest. To act in one's self-interest is to act mainly for one's own good and loving what is one's own (i.e. ego, body, family, house, belongings in general). It means to give one's own interests higher priority then others'. "It (psychological egoism) claims that we cannot do other than act from self-interest motivation, so that altruism-the theory that we can and should sometimes act in favor of others' interests-is simply invalid because it's impossible" (Pojman 85). According to psychological egoists, any act no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (i.e., desire for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness).
In my opinion, I agree with the deontological argument that “some acts, regardless of their consequences, are always wrong”. Although for me, both the people who perform an act and the consequences of an act, have the same relevance and importance for the world in general. Now, even bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to stop the war, the utilitarian and ethical egoist arguments do not morally justified the act because they are not taking care of everyone, instead they are just thinking in their own benefits and interests. Utilitarians take care of the society in general, but they are capable of scarifying and killing people in order to achieve the overall good and organization. On the other hand, the ethical egoists just focus on
Egoism states the egoism, holds that moral conduct ought to be judged through self-interest. Egoism states that the good consequences for the individual agent outweigh the consequences placed upon others. In egoism, actions could be considered ethical for the individual if the one taking the action is benefited, while any benefit or detriment to the welfare of others is a side effect and not as important as the consequences for the individual.
Egoism is the idea that a person believes they should do whatever is necessary to attain their own advancements and pleasures, disregarding their dishonorable acts. Plenty who have egoistic traits believe it is the justifications of such behaviors that drives one to exhibit unethical decisions. In fact, no matter how clear a goal may appear one always experiences unexpected circumstances when trying to reach any goal. Consequently, individuals tend to turn to their religions, when put under unexpected predicaments. For this reason, they end up turning to religion to fix their circumstances, or to forgive them from all wrongdoings to help ease their consciousness. Therefore, their egoistic traits leads them towards “conditional faith,” only