Ethical Egoism: The Queen Vs. Dudley And Stevens

The moral theory that most closely resembles my own moral philosophy is the theory of ethical egoism which is the belief that people should act in accordance to what would most likely result in the best outcomes and consequences for their own lives. First, a famous moral dilemma that the theory of ethical egoism can be applied to is the case of The Queen vs. Dudley and Stevens. In this example, an ethical egoist would determine that since the sailor should act with regard to his own self interest (the preservation of his life) but also consider the consequences (the legal implications) of his actions the sailor should not kill one of the other sailors, because that would be murder and result in negative consequences that would impact their life. Assuming that cannibalism was the only means for the

A person who prescribes to the theory of ethical egoism would most likely analyze the situation in the following way. If the bystander did not act then it would have little impact on their life other than the emotional aspect of the deaths that occurred. Conversely, if the bystander did act by switching the train to the other track and killing another person they would be guilty of murder and this would have negative implications on their life and an ethical egoist would be less likely to take this course of action. In some states the legal concept of duty to rescue would exempt them from being required to intervene because it would result in “peril to yourself or to others” (http://www.thelaw.com/law/good-samaritan-laws-the-duty-to-help-or-rescue-someone.218/). I believe that the concept of ethical egoism is superior compared to other moral theories because it recognizes that people should act with regard to the consequences of their