Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Understanding ethical egoism
Understanding ethical egoism
Egoism vs utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Understanding ethical egoism
Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest.
Ethical egoism conflicts with ethical altruism, which states that moral agents have an obligation to help anyone but themselves. Egoism and altruism both conflict with ethical utilitarianism, which claims that an individual should not treat themselves with higher regard than they have for others as egoism instructs, by elevating ones own self-interests and "the self" to a status not shared with others. But it also goes without saying that one should not sacrifice their own interests to help another fulfill their interests, as long as one's own interests are considerably comparable to the other person’s interests and own well-being. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both forms of consequentialism which is subject-focused or subjectively based. However, utilitarianism is held to be a neutral position, it does not treat the subject's own self-interests as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of other individuals.
Ethical egoism does not involve individuals to harm the interests and well-being of others when making decisions; what is in an individual's self-interest may be coincidently detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others. Individualism allows for others' interest and well-being to be disregarded or not, as long as what is chosen is e...
... middle of paper ...
...he writes, "the purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."[]
All of our frequently accepted moral obligations, not harming others, always speaking the truth and keeping promises, are all derived from the one fundamental standard of self-interest.
It has been observed, however, that the very act of eating, especially when there are starving people in the world would be considered an act of discrimination. Ethical egoists who readily accept the value of others to an individual, and who readily empathize for others, have debated the exact opposite from Rachels, that it is altruism that discriminates: "If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, then why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others?"[] It is therefore altruism which is the illogical position.
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.
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.
...r current United States government leans toward Universal Egoism as the members of both the Republican and Democratic parties are concerned with their personal goals and the common goals of the party without listening to or attending to the will of the people, they are there to serve. We no longer a country "of the people, by the people and for the people." I submit this example as an example against ethical egoism in general. We, as a society, cannot function without consideration of others.
The view of an Ethical Egoist, henceforth to be referred as the egoist, is quite simple in a way. The way to determine WWTED (What would the egoist do?), can be easily done if one refers back to the principles of an egoist. The view of an egoist depends on the following: 1. We ought always to do what is in our long term best interest, 2. The right act, or duty, is the act that maximizes our long term intrinsic good, and 3. Our duty is to do that which benefits us the most in the long term. In other words, an egoist’s actions and decisions depend on whether the act will benefit himself in the long run.
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 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.
• 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
To sum up, looking upon the term self-interest, people not only need to separate its concept with selfishness, but also have to
...sted with altruism, which is not strictly self-interested, but includes in its goal the interests of others as well. There are at least three different ways in which the theory of egoism can be presented. This is the claim that individuals should always to act in their own best interest.
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).
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.
Ethical egoism can be a well-debated topic about the true intention of an individual when he or she makes an ethical decision. Max Stirner brings up a very intriguing perspective in writing, The Ego and its Own, regarding ethical egoism. After reading his writing some questions are posed. For example, are human beings at the bottom? Following Wiggins and Putnam, can we rise above our egoism and truly be altruistic? And finally, if we are something, do we have the capacity to rise to a level that we can criticize and transcend our nature? These questions try to establish whether or not we are simple humans, bound to our intrinsic nature, or far more intellectually advanced than we allow ourselves to be.
Egoism is the act of pursuing a particular course of action that is driven by 'sel...