Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Kant's deontological theory in your own words
Ethical egoism theory of ethics
Kant's deontological theory in your own words
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Kant's deontological theory in your own words
Theory Description Ethical egoism is a normative ethical position that focuses morally right action that promotes the individual own self interest. It states that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer can be considered as ethical. It differs from psychological egoism in that because ethical egoism says we ought to be selfish while psychological states we should be selfish (Frankena, 1973. 18). The theory in itself says we are hard-wired to be selfish and focus on what type of actions promote use and is self serving. The moral appraisal of things assumes our curiosity, necessitates and even contentment of others should factor in a stability of what we perceive morally and what is in our self-interest. What is morally right and …show more content…
This theory judges the morality of an action based on the actions adherence to a set of rules. It is explained as an action is morally right if it is required by duty, and should not conflict with any other action required by another duty. By doing our duty we do what is valuable, this theory focuses on the structure of moral judgment. One should act regardless of your own aims or self-interest. Kant formalism is based on deontology and are united and their opposition to purely oppose the consequentiality moral thinking; some even hold that a morally wrong may have entirely good consequences, and a morally right on entirely bad consequences (Frankena, 1973. 16). Kant’s formalism is straight forward, basically in simple terms; would you like it if someone did that to you? No? Then that action is morally wrong. According to Kant, some problems with consequentialism, he believes if we are incline to do what we feel is good trying to produce good consequences then this act is not morally responsible. People differ in what they feel are good consequences therefore we can never truly know and achieve agreement if this action is morally sound. Because Kant does not believe that ethics is based on a desire, need or emotions but is about what’s is right and doing one’s duty (Mizzoni, 2010.
Most people agree with the quote “sometimes you have to do what’s best for you
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.
Immanuel Kant is a philosopher of the early centuries, one of his well-known works is his moral theory which can be referred to as Deontology. The moral theory arises from the principle behind Deontology which is derived from -deon which signifies rule or law and -ology which means the study of. Kant designed his moral theory to be contradictory to utilitarianism which is a moral theory that focuses on the outcomes of an action. Beside other factors the moral theory is a non-consequentialist moral theory which in basic terms means the theory follows a law based system of making judgements and disregards the consequences. Kant once said “Actions are only morally good if they are done because of a good will” however, for Kant a good will is complex
In other words, ethical egoism states that there are objective moral facts and an action is morally good if and only if it promotes my personal happiness and it is morally wrong if and only if that action hinders my personal happiness. Apart from Ethical Egoism there is another topic to be known clearly, it is called Psychological Egoism. Psychological Egoism It is the claim that each person, in fact, pursues his/her own happiness.
Review of “Situationism and Virtue Ethics on the Content of Our Character” by Rachana Kamtekatar
• 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
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).
Kant theory is saying that everyone must do things for the right reasons. According to Deontological ethics theory, an action is considered favourable sometimes because of some good aspect of action in itself without considering its good result from the action. This theory is much based upon the one’s morals and values which expresses the “sake of duty” and virtue. Deontology tells us to be fair and not to take advantage of others while teleology tells about doing whatever we want and it gives us a result that is good to us. [17]
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
However, in my opinion, Kantian ethics is a slightly better ethical theory than consequentialism for several reasons. Primarily, the theory of consequentialism compels us in measuring the benefits and harm that could result from our action while Kantian ethics does not. Just as in the case of the “Footbridge Dilemma”, Kant’s approach to ethics does not require us to give value to the lives of the five workers and the innocent man and choose the act that would result in the greatest net benefit. Second, instead of considering the consequences, Kantian ethics focuses on the intent of our action, which means, “the morality of actions depends entirely on what is within our control” (Landau, 2015, p.164). Finally, Kant’s view deemed actions “that sometimes make … the best consequences [as] wrong” (Hurka, 2014, p. 135). This means that acts of killing and stealing, no matter how much optimific results they bring, are immoral under Kantian ethics. However, despite the strengths of Kant’s view over consequentialism, it is undisputable that “Kantian theory is not without its own problems, and many of those are neatly addressed by consequentialism” (Landau, 2015,
Growing up we are put in situations where we learn what is the moral thing to do and non moral just by our upbringing like religion, culture, and or race. This is called Ethics which is one of the major branch of philosophy that systematize, defend, and recommend concepts of right and wrong conduct. With that being said there are different kind of ethical approaches different philosophers discovered/ believed in which lay in the structure of consequentialist (the consequence of an action), Deontological ( duty, obligation, motivation, intention), and teleological ( striving to be a certain kind of person or fulfilling a kind of purpose ). In this paper I’m going to be defending Kant’s deontological theory which
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.