The Pros and Cons of Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is a doctrine that suggests that the ethical principle to follow is one which is in one’s own self-interest. It is a deeply debated topic and an extensively held normative theory. The ethical egoist wonders the reason for considering another people’s interest and what he stands to gain. This essay touches on the pros and cons of ethical egoism and suggests a rule of thumb to follow when handling situations.
In simple terms, ethical egoism directs one’s attention to ventures and activities that would bring the most interests or profits. In another light, it could be said that morality serves to encourage self-interests. That is to say that every time one is morally mandated to do something, doing such promotes self-interest. It is then safe to say that ethical egoism is perception based; one’s view determines the outcome, it is not factual. It is subjective. Russ Shafer-Landau, a renowned Professor of Philosophy, in his book The Fundamentals of Ethics summarizes his approach to the pros of ethical egoism thus:
If you are morally required to do something, then you have a good reason to do it.
If there is good reason for you to do something, then doing it must make you better off.
Therefore, if you are morally required to do something,
…show more content…
These advantages of ethical egoism together with the disadvantages should be weighed per circumstance and moral codes should be followed when taking decision for no two circumstances are exactly alike. In conclusion, having examined the consequences of the benefits and disadvantages of ethical egoism, I can say that ethical egoism seems to have a strong influence as to why individuals make certain decisions. Ethical egoism is not bad in itself, for one saves himself to save others. An individual cannot thrive if they stifle their needs to help
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.
Morality can be separated into many entities, one of which being one’s willingness to personally sacrifice for someone else. One’s own mind may factor into one’s decision when put in a difficult situation, a situation as extreme as putting your own well-being on the line for someone else’s. Many people, when asked if they would help others at nearly any cost, would automatically answer yes; however, when faced with this type of hardship, one, more often than not, does what is in their self-interest. That, however, does not define whether one should help others or not. One is morally obligated to sacrifice their well-being for the benefit of another’s.
Notably, Ayn Rand held this view. “This holds that people should do or ought to do what is in their (long term) self-interest” (Eby 3). Some advocates of normative ethical egoism find it unethical to require a sacrifice of self-interest through the belief that this hinders freedom and initiative. Applying this theory to the autonomous vehicle scenario, the car would save the driver and passengers at all cost. In this case, the driver would regard their own life so highly that they disregard the injury their actions would cause others. A self-driving car acting out of the same self-interest theory would be programmed to hit the group of pedestrians, so long as it guarantees the survival of the vehicle and its
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.
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.
In every aspect of our lives we have a choice that can determine our dishonorable effort
• 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
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.
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
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
Egoism is the act of pursuing a particular course of action that is driven by 'sel...
Ethical egoism states that an act is good if and only if it serves self-interest. It is a normative theory holding that people ought to do what is in their self- interest
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.