Egoism : Decision On Selling The Plant

This paper is going to discuss Ethics and Ethical Theories. It will include an introduction to ethical theories, virtue ethics, and care ethics. There will be sections discussing absolutism versus relativism, consequentialism versus deontological ethics, and lastly, free will versus determinism. It will also include a discussion about the study of morality and identify which of the approaches (Scientific, Philosophical, or Theological/Religious) are closest to my own personal beliefs. There will be a discussion regarding the three sources of ethics

Believing in ethical egoism means that you’re classifying all humans in two groups; you and the rest of the world. You believe your values are better and are right compared to other people’s values. If you think your duty is to do what is best for yourself, and you do not care about others only if they benefit you, it can lead to many problems. You can use the example of a 60-year-old man shooting his letter carrier seven times because he was $90,000 in debt and thought that being in prison would be better than being homeless. This guy in making the decision to kill the letter carrier was thinking about himself. He was not thinking about the letter carrier, his family, etc. If you believe in ethical egoism, you would conclude that it was normal for the 60-year-old guy to do and you have to accept his

- Ethical egoism: that theory asserts that the morally right action is the one that produce the most favorable balance of good over evil for one self. By taking that decision, she twill think about her first and save her life

Situations where self interest and public interest work against each other are known as “commons problems.” In the market model the chief source of conflict is individual’s perceived welfare vs. another’s perceived welfare. In the polis model the chief source of conflict is self interest vs. public interest, or “how to have both private benefits and collective benefits.” Stone notes “most actions in the market model do not have social consequences” but in the polis, commons problems “are everything.” It is rare in the polis that the costs and benefits of an action are entirely self-contained, affect only one or two individuals, or are limited to direct and immediate effects. Actions in the polis have unanticipated consequences, side effects, long-term effects, and effect many people. Stone states, “one major dilemma in the polis is how to get people to give weight to these broader consequences in their private calculus of choices, especially in an era when the dominant culture celebrates private consumption and personal gain.” That is a

Its general outline is the moral rightness of an action is determined by outcomes. For example, a student was struggling to help an old lady who has fallen on ground while other people do not even care about it and a student had to leave in a hurry. However, he helped her and a lady offered cordial thanks. As the example is illustrated, the act is good if its consequences are good, but if its consequences are bad then the act is wrong. Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) emphasizes that consequentialists determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action will produce. According to consequentialists, the decision of the Dean of Harvard Business School is simply explained as the result of decision which rejected all applicants who attempted to access the information derive a conclusion which Dean Clark observed their belief, principles and it shows making own decisions is always with responsibility for actions. In addition, utilitarianism will be applied on this case because this theory is in contrast with egoism which can be defined by Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) as egoism contends that an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes an agent’s long term interest.’. It means self-interesting is most important key point whether going into action or not. However, Utilitarianism is focused on more about ‘achieving the

Philosophers have debated for centuries the question “Are humans are selfish or selfless?” There are two main arguments for debating human nature, ethical egoists and ethical altruists. Ethical egoists believe that “even though we can act in others’ interests because we are concerned for others, we ought always to act in our own interest” (Solomon et al 2012 p. 460). Ethical altruists believe quite the opposite; ethical altruism is the belief that “people ought to act with each other’s interests in mind” (Solomon et al 2012 p. 461). In discussing the four theories, psychological egoism, psychological altruism, ethical egoism, and ethical altruism, with my husband, there was not a clear dividing line for whether humans are selfish or selfless in nature. After much debate, we concluded that humans are born ethical egoists; however, ethical altruists are made through proper training, care, and nurture.

Virtue ethics is a normative theory whose foundations were laid by Aristotle. This theory approaches normative ethics in substantially different ways than consequentialist and deontological theories. In this essay, I will contrast and compare virtue ethics to utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Kantianism to demonstrate these differences. There is one fundamental aspect of virtue ethics that sets it apart from the other theories I will discuss. For the sake of brevity and to avoid redundancy, I will address it separately. This is the fundamental difference between acting ethically within utilitarianism, egoism, and Kantianism. And being ethical within virtue ethics. The other theories seek to define the ethics of actions while virtue ethics does not judge actions in any way. The other theories deal with how we should act, while virtue ethics determines how we should be.

     Also, when a situation arises in which one must make a split decision, does the psychological egoist expect a human to deliberate whether the action is in their self-interest or not? For example, if I see my child run out onto a busy street and I can see that if I run out and grab her I can save her life and if I do not, my child will be squished by a speeding car. Do I, as the egoist would expect, take the time to deliberate that saving my child will result in all kinds of good for both her and I? No, I rush out and grab her in an instant and the good comes later. Now of course it is true that we sometimes get satisfaction and/or good feelings from acting unselfishly, but it would be a post hoc fallacy to say that we perform unselfish acts solely for the sake of that satisfaction. Also, self-interest and an interest for the welfare of others can certainly be bedfellows, and not strange ones. Using the shopkeeper example, he could opt never cheat his customers simply because he knows that honesty is good for business. He could cheat his customers and make a boatload of money, but he knows that it is wrong to cheat and lie to people – it hurts them, is unfair and may make him feel guilty. So, self-interest or selfishness is not

“People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what, do or should they act—for themselves, for God, or for the good of the planet?” (Moseley) An egoist would argue that one acts for one’s own self. More specifically, an ethical egoist is one who thrives to improve ones own self being, with much respect to morality. Ethical Egoism is the theory that one should pursue his or her own interest above all the rest. It is the idea that all persons should act from their own self interest in relation to morality.

Ethical Egoism is a normative claim; it believes that individuals should always in their best interest. Another view of ethical egoism is that a person should act according to his own self-interest even if it goes against the values and beliefs of others.

Ethical Egoism is a normative theory which focuses on individualistic consequences (Burgess-Jackson, 2013). Everyone is said to be motivated by their own self-interest, as it is their moral obligation to do what is best for themselves (Rachels, 2003). How an individual ought to behave is determined by whether the action creates the highest net utility for themselves (Rachels, 2003). In Thomas

What if you only thought about yourself every day? What if you made no attempts to help a friend of family member in need? What if you did what was best for you and only you? Would you be able to live with yourself? The views of a psychological egoist have clear answers to the previous questions. A psychological egoist believe in just those sorts of behaviors. While in contrasting view of an ethical egoist believe in what we ought to do. These views were both demonstrated in the film “Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Each of those views make an impact on how one lives their lives, and the circumstances associated with each view. Taking a look at the differences and similarities of psychological egoism and ethical egoism is the first

On the other hand, ethical egoism is a theory that prescribes moral obligation, where all people should be motivated out of self interest (Rachels, 2003, p. 70). This means that every person ought to act in a way that is best for him/herself. Ethical egoism claims that it is moral for all of an individual’s actions to be based on self-interest, without concerning him/herself with the interests of others. In fact, this thought may be continued by stating that altruism is, therefore, personally hindering and even demeaning (Brink, 1997, p. 122). Hence, ethical egoism must consequently mean that actions taken in an individual’s self-interest are moral actions, and actions taken that are not self-beneficial to an individual are immoral and should, as a result, be avoided.

Ethical egoism requires that for an action to be moral it must maximize one's own self interest

People’s decisions are often based on their moral perceptions of things. These perceptions are often sculptured by their diverse cultural backgrounds thereby bringing varying moral perceptions of global issues. In corporate social responsibility, the social concept of morality can be traced to the traditional ethical theories attributed to ethical decision making especially among business personnel. These theories can be classified as either non-consequentialist or consequentialist theories. Consequentialist theories often base moral judgements on the results of engaging in a particular action and are often based on intended outcomes, the aims or the goals of the undertaken action. Non-consequentialist theories on the other hand base their moral judgements on the underlying principles of the decision maker’s motivation (Crane 2010). Consequentialist theories such as Egoism and utilitarianism often play a big role in the choices