Do we have an ethical obligation to meet other peoples' interests? In my perspective individual’s actions depend on their own person interest. Humans don’t care if it’s helping people or not they only care for helping themselves. People’s actions tend to benefit the interests of others but only when there is something in it for themselves, the reward or something get out of it is the sole reason why the act how they act. Rachel’s believes that we do have an ethical obligation to meet other peoples' interests. However, we have "natural duties" to others because people are helped or harmed by our actions". If a certain action on our part could help another’s we should help them is Rachel’s belief. The interests of others count from a moral point of view. Therefore, other people's interests are …show more content…
An Individual's own interest is ultimately the most valuable thing for that individual. Ethical egoism does not claim that all men seek their own self-interest but does claim that we ought to seek our self-interest it is very confusing which results in different perspectives on who’s selfish or not. Egoism justifies what we take to be wicked acts, and people are not obligated to do things. Ethical egoism allows each individual to view his or her own life as being of ultimate value and take the humans seriously. Philosophy is the only aspect that does think so. Rachel believes that “the best way to promote everyone’s interests is for each of us to adopt the policies of pursuing our own interest exclusively” (80). It seems that there is no way to maintain the doctrine of ethical egoism as a normative doctrine for how we ought to act. “For he wants a world in which his own interests are maximized; and if other people adopted the egoistic policy of pursuing their own interests to the exclusion of his interests, as he pursues his interests to the exclusion of theirs, then such a world would be impossible”
I both agree and disagree with Peter Singer. While I believe that we do have a moral obligation to help others, I also believe we have a moral obligation to leave other people alone and let them get on with their lives.
We as a society have acted upon our obligations in the past, such as during World War 2, yet the occasional dose of action is not what we are supposed to desire as humans. We can not say “I will help these people who are being abused today, yet these people yesterday are on their own.”. Moral obligation is not something so fickle as we wish to make it seem. Although the proposal I have left you with is tough to chew on, it is the right principle to act upon if we are to improve human life and live morally good lives.
Psychological egoism is the view that people are always selfish. When was the last time you did a good deed? Did you do it for its own sake, or for your own? The egoist says that all of us are necessarily self-regarding. I shall argue that this view is incorrect.
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
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.
• 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
This book has characters that display an extreme sense of ethical altruism. The society in anthem is so fair and equal that none of the characters show any individualism. It takes the main character nearly all of the novel to finally learn what it means to be “selfish” and keep some things for himself. This is something that Ayn Rand calls ethical egoism. However, is this a method that can be really be applied to today’s society and is it alright to have it? There should definitely be a balance between how much ethical egoism and ethical altruism you display. You should try your best to care and look out for others but there are some things that a person has to be selfish about. There are things that people will always need help with and circumstances that will require people to be kind and helpful. On the other hand sometimes you have to put your own happiness and self before anyone else’s. It’s not that you don’t care about people it’s just that sometimes you have to come
“Those who care for others… live a life , in a divine way, above others” -Anonymous. Even as small children, we are taught to treat others as we would like to be treated, but as we grow older, the world becomes more complex, and the length to which we should stretch ourselves for others becomes unclear. Some people may believe that one must always put others first, while others put other people’s worries and safety far behind their own. Throughout this year I have gathered artifacts, some support these theories, while others do not, and a rew support my own theory. I believe that the most healthy and appropriate way to approach this moral grey area is to always consider other’s needs and feelings, but you must also consider your needs and know
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
I will also articulate my positions regarding proposals from John Arthur, Peter Singer, and Immanuel Kant. John Arthur, an American philosopher, states that “this idea can be expressed rather awkwardly by the notion of entitlements, by which I have in mind the thought that having either a right or justly deserving something can also be important as we think about our obligations to others.” The other side of the coin would be the views of Peter Singer, an Australian moral philosopher, states that “...if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, believes that “The practical necessity of acting on this principle -- that is, duty -- is not based on at all on feelings, impulses, and inclinations, but only on the relation of rational beings to one another, a relation in which the will of a rational being must be regarded as lawgiving, because otherwise it could not be thought of as an end in
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.
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.
Morality can be based on consciousness and various perspectives but morals, regardless of distinct cultures, have a core fundamental of comprehending what is right and wrong. By this, we are held to an obligation to assist those in need. This means that we should feel obligated to do whatever it is within our might to aid situations that need assistance.
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,...