EGOISM VS ETHICAL RELATIVISM
As described in our text, egoism does not have one set definition. It has different meanings because there are different variations of egoism. Egoism can be described as descriptive which is the “theory that describes what people are like” (Mackinnon pg 34). This descriptive theory of egoism is called the psychological egoism. The psychological egoism theory basically states that a person either selfish or self centered. Another type of egoism is normative. Normative also called ethical egoism is a “theory about how people ought to behave” (Mackinnon pg. 34). “According to some philosophers ethical relativism is a theory that holds there are no universally accepted ethical standards” (Mackinnon pg.
…show more content…
The first and obvious difference is that egoism is solely focused around an individual whereas ethical relativism does not have to be. When discussing egoism, regardless if it is psychological egoism or ethical egoism, it is pertaining to an individual. When discussing ethical relativism, it depends on what form of ethical relativism you are discussing. “Individual ethical relativism, ethical judgments and beliefs are the expressions of the moral outlook and attitudes of individual persons” (Mackinnon pg. 21) and “cultural ethical relativism is defined as ethical values varying from society to society and that the basis of moral judgments lies in these social or cultural views” (Mackinnon pg.21). Another difference is that ethical relativism is based around the morality of things for example one might think that you have the right own a gun for safety or protection whereas egoism it is solely up to that person’s beliefs. Egoism challenges morality on a skeptical level challenging all moral rules. Ethical relativism supports morality it is simply broken down to an individual level and a cultural level. The cultural level simply means based on one’s background and how that person was raised will determine what they fell to be morally correct or
Macklin, Ruth. "Ethical relativism in a multicultural society." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8.1 (1998): 1-22.
Many seem to have falling prey to the seduction of ethical relativism, because it plays in to their ethnocentric egoistic moral belief. Individuals such as Pojman are able to critically evaluate this moral principle and not fall victim like his or hers lay counter parts. We will attempt to analyze the theory of ethical relativism, by check the validity of this ethical theory, and evaluate its ethical concepts. With these procedures we will find if it is competent as an ethical principle to adhere by. Then evaluate Louis Pojman critique on ethical relativism and analyze does he successfully refute relativism position. We will also analyze objectivism; the ethical theory which Pojman erects in the place of ethical relativism.
A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards that apply to all peoples at all times. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be applied to all peoples at all times. Culture and personal morals cause a person to make certain moral decisions.
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
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.
Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
• 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
... as humans whereas ethical egoism gives us choices because it prescribes what we ought to do and we can choose to do it or not to whether the act is good or bad. Thus, the clear and distinct difference is that psychological egoism is a descriptive theory while ethical egoism is a prescriptive or a normative theory.
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.
Egoism is the act of pursuing a particular course of action that is driven by 'sel...
Vaughn first defines ethical relativism by stating that moral standards are not objective, but are relative to what individuals or cultures believe (Vaughn 13). Rachels says that cultural relativism states “that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only various cultural codes,
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. The paper will express Rand’s description of ethical egoism and the arguments she gives in support of ethical egoism, in the piece “The Virtue of Selfishness,” and also encompass James Rachels’s rebuttal to Rand’s views on ethical egoism
It has been said that people act and do for whatever reason, but for who, why, what. In philosophy there are quite a few types of egoism. There is psychological egoism, which means people make choices based on their own interest. Though in some self interest it could even be in what seem to be acts of altruism. Which claims that when people choose to help others, they do so because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. Ethical Egoism, the theory that a person should follow their own interest above all the rest. It’s the idea that every person should act from their own self interest in relation to morality. Within ethical egoism there are many different types of it: Personal ethical
What is the value of a life? Is it how long you live, what you accomplish during your lifetime, or things you acquire? The ethics and moral reasoning behind this simple question does wealth equate to happiness? This has been asked many times and the debate from both sides has great points and emphasis, but I would like to talk about those who seem to be thrown on the back burner the needy. Now if you were to hear the word needy many different categories come to mind homeless, unemployed, sick, and the underprivileged. Each sector is different in terms of the needs and what is asked to help them: however they stand together in regards to some type of assistance to help them attain and maintain simple everyday tasks in their lives.
For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral. There is no connection between them so they are never in conflict relative to their moral beliefs. However, within the context of Ethical Relativism there’s a significant difference. Normally, two cultures will possess varying proportions of the same normal and abnormal habits yet from a cross-cultural standpoint, what is abnormal in one culture can be seen as properly normal in an...