The objective of this paper is to analyze the theory of ethical egoism beginning with an introduction to ethical egoism is, its principle of conduct, and an explanation how it differs from psychological egoism. Following will be a discussion of how the arbitrary principle of certain beliefs is the same for ethical egotism which subsequently conduces the arbitrariness of the theory. Lastly this paper will explain why it is unsuitable as a moral theory due to its groundlessness and failure to meet the minimum conception of morality.
Typically most would say that people have a duty to others as well as themselves. However for egoists this is not the case, for them the interests of others are unimportant and irrelevant. This application of self-interest
…show more content…
However it is agreed upon on the existence and need for morals, thus the call for a minimum conception of morality. Every theory must have this minimum in order to be considered a true moral theory. In essence, it must “guide one’s conduct by reason while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by what one does” (Rachels p.14). This poses a problem for ethical egoism as a moral theory since ethical egoism does not meet either of the requirements. Ethical egoism is a mistaken theory in that it leads to logical contradictions (Rachels p.87). If one were to protect one’s interest that would require one to prevent another from carrying out their duty to their self, it would be both right and wrong to do so. However that is not logical and self-contradictory, thus not would not be basing conduct on reason. To reiterate, the theory of ethical egoism states that one should put his or her own needs before others, this fails the second part of the minimum conception of morality. Furthermore in advocating that one treat others in differently when there are no factual differences is unjustifiable and makes this an arbitrary doctrine. Since there is no relevant factual difference between oneself and others, thus no real logic or reason, then the needs of others are equally important, which goes against the main principle of conduct for ethical egoism. Yet still the theory would not see the need to regard other individuals who may be affected by one’s actions, which again fails the minimum
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.
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
As previously stated, there is a balance to be maintained between selflessness and selfishness. Logically speaking, you would always want to help people, but overexerting yourself to try and help them solve their problems, won’t really help anyone. These ideas are expressed in Selflessness and the Loss of Self (Hampton, Jean, and Daniel Farnham). The Intrinsic Worth of Persons: Contractarianism in Moral and Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge UP, 2007.
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
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.
Philosopher Julian Baggini offers an evaluation and personal theory of self in his book The Ego Trick. This paper will summarize key parts of the book and evaluate the soundness of its claims. I have divided my paper into three main parts. The first acts as a primer for later sections, and summarizes the first section of Baggini’s book. The second is a synopsis of Baggini’s main claims. And the third reflects upon the truth of Baggini’s claims.
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.
...o two parts: conscience and ego ideal. Conscience tells what is right and wrong, and forces the ego to inhibit the id in pursuit of morally acceptable, not pleasurable or even realistic, goals. The ego ideal aims the individual's path of life toward the ideal, perfect goals instilled by society. In the pursuit, the mind attempts to make up for the loss of the perfect life experienced as a baby." (Stevenson D, 1966)
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.
Self-interest is essential for individual’s happiness and wellbeing. It enables people to provide food and shelter for themselves and their
Ethical egoism is a theory which is normative. The theory is based on favors, praises and motivation. The main factors considered in this theory are the actions of person that result to impact individually. People are believed to act according to their interest. The argument is that, we are bound up due to our own happiness, interests, desires and hopes. There is essence of behaving to our will, and center to things that make difference in our lives. This egoist approach says that good action is which fits for an individual, for example if one is hungry and there isn’t food and decides to eat chips, then that is good according to him and he deserves to do it. Applying this theory to the case of Delshondra who is sick we will consider what he thinks is