Both utilitarianism and ethical egoism are theories that focus on the outcome of a situation as the primary motivation of that action and any examination of whether or not that situation is ethical. The major difference between utilitarianism and ethical egoism is where those outcomes are aimed. The way I describe it so it is easy to understand is that utilitarianism seeks to get the most amount of good by lessening harm to all, while egoism seeks to get the most of the good by keeping the individual happy, they “ought” to. (80 more words)
Ethical egoism is all about one’s self interest. Ethical egoism is that we can harm other people by looking out for their interests. For instance, we may misread their interests and botch in the way we help, or we may intrude on their lives and
…show more content…
This justification is presumed upon the value of general welfare, which is exactly the thing that ethical egoism says isn’t important. Rather than saying that our own interests only matter, this argument says that paying attention to our own interests is the most effective way to promote everyone else’s interests. This method of thinking is an experimental claim about the best way to benefit people in general, not an actual claim about whose interests should count. Another argument for ethical egoism is that altruistic ethics (which is showing selfless concern for others and their wellbeing) requires one to forgo ourselves for the benefit of others, and that we were to go along with altruistic ethics we would have nothing to give one's projects, goals, and relationships. However, those things are exactly what make life valuable; thus, altruistic ethics claims no importants on those things, which are the things that make life valuable. Rachels disagrees with this argument saying it is a difference of opinion. (QUOTE RACHELS). The last argument for ethical egoism that I will go into
I will summarize her main argument, it goes as follows. The goal of life is to be happy. Altruism prescribes that we sacrifice our interests for the happiness of others. Therefore, altruism is incompatible with the goal of happiness. Egoism prescribes that we seek our own happiness exclusively. Therefore, ethical egoism is the correct moral theory. At the surface, this seems valid but Louis Pojman breaks down this argument. Pojman offers a critique with his four arguments against ethical egoism. Pojman starts with his inconsistent outcomes argument. This states that if everyone had their own belief system the world would be insane as everyone would be doing only what is best for them leaving the world chaotic. His publicity argument states that an egoist cannot express his egoistic ideas without harming his goal which is a contradiction. The paradox of egoism argument states that egoists would have to give up self-interest to maximize happiness, for example friendship. Lastly, the argument from counterintuitive consequences claims it’s always wrong to help others which seems wrong to most people. This leaves egoism with some major
In Plato’s Republic and in Rachels' Egoism and Moral Scepticism, the authors attempt to combat psychological egoism, which is the ethical theory which asserts that all human motivation is ultimately self-interested. Each author rejects the possibility of this being a valid conclusion of philosophical ethics, and each instead offers an alternate solution to the origin of human motivation. Whether we are capable of acting out of non self-interested ways directly affects the implementation of ethics around the world. If psychological egoism is true, then ethical philosophy will only be useful when it is specifically beneficial for the individual rather than the collective society. I disagree with this ethical theory, because it is possible for one to act for the benefit of others and his or her own detriment. There are many example cases of an individual doing so and each of which undermines the core belief of psychological egoism: each individual acts solely for his or her own benefit. Instead, through taking pieces of psychological egoist theories I will be able to define a better, dynamic view of the origins of human desires.
Utilitarianism concerns itself with promoting the best outcomes for the greatest numbers in order to be ethically acceptable, utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach which aims at results of actions regardless of how they are carried out. Utilitarian monsters, a term coined by R. Nozick, are those who “get enormously greater gains in utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose. For, unacceptably, the theory seems to require that we all be sacrificed in the monster’s maw, in order to increase total utility”.(The Utility Monster, 2011)
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.
• 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 stated in the textbook, Think Critical Thinking and Logical Skills For Everyday Life by Judith A Boss, in this particular phase of moral development people have an understanding of what’s right or wrong; however, they will always put the needs of themselves over the needs of others (Boss 275). The Egoist stage is filled with people being self-centered and completely irrational (Cholbi 2011). That being said, no matter how much a person’s overall morals develop, do they actually ever fully evolve from the Egoist stage? For instance, mankind is a selfish race, regardless of how hard humankind tires to evolve to be better or kinder, most will still only help others when it’s a benefit to themselves. I, personally, will help others, regardless of the benefit to me; however, I would be a hypocrite to say, that I would still not go out of my way to help another if it were of great advantage to me. For example, my family invited me over to help decorate for Christmas; I set aside a day off of work to do so, until my work inquired as to whether I could decorate their facility. Demonstrating to my employer that I would work on my day off would be of a greater benefit to me, so that is what I chose to
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).
The aim of utilitarianism in general is optimal happiness, which is the only intrinsic good according to Mill. More specifically, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner in which they asses what will yield the greatest amount of happiness. Often, one of the objections to utilitarianism is that it is overly demanding. However, this objection that the utilitarian view is too demanding is fitting for both forms of utilitarianism, according to the Fundamentals of Ethics. In the following, I will address why utilitarianism is habitually seen as overly demanding, and I will provide a defense of utilitarianism contrary to these objections.
Utilitarianism is zdefined, as the right way to act is one that maximizes your happiness, (pleasure and happiness is the absence of pain) while the wrong way is one that produces the opposite i.e. pain. Unhappiness here is defined as pain or the opposite of happiness. This is the basis of utilitarianism or what Mill calls the “greatest happiness principle” and it is the best ethical theory by which humans should follow. The argument for the above is as follows
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 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,...
I see utilitarianism as a powerful and persuasive approach to ethics in philosophy. There are varieties of views discussed but utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally correct action is the action that produces the most good. In its simplest form it is maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. There are a few ways to think about this claim. One good way to think about is that this theory is a form of consequentialism. The right action is understood basically in terms of consequences produced. The utilitarian view is one thought to maximize the overall good; that good being the good of others as well as the good of ones self. Utilitarianism is also not partial. Everybody 's happiness counts the same. This version of the good is one that must maximize the good for everyone. My good counts just the same as anyone else 's good.
In my opinion, I agree with the deontological argument that “some acts, regardless of their consequences, are always wrong”. Although for me, both the people who perform an act and the consequences of an act, have the same relevance and importance for the world in general. Now, even bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to stop the war, the utilitarian and ethical egoist arguments do not morally justified the act because they are not taking care of everyone, instead they are just thinking in their own benefits and interests. Utilitarians take care of the society in general, but they are capable of scarifying and killing people in order to achieve the overall good and organization. On the other hand, the ethical egoists just focus on