Ethical Egoism And The Ethics Of Care

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

Both psychological egoism and the classical theory can be defended by the utilitarian argument. Utilitarianism maintains that any action or system is good if it results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. A utilitarian would commence by looking at the total utility or the happiness generated by the compensation paid to executives. Now if paying executive compensation by way of stock options leads to misguiding skyrocketing of profits figures and causes financial loss to several shareholders of the company, the utilitarian will propose that the executives should not be compensated by way of stock options. Moral worth lies in contribution to the overall utility.

Egoism might be interpreted by many disciplines. According to ethical egosim, the morally right action is the one that best promotes the individual’s own interests. One of the most important contributor of egoism is Adam Smith. Egoism focuses on individual desires and interests. When we evaluate the overbooking case from the view of egoism, it can be said that airlines companies act ethically because they try to maximize their own interests by trying to increase their profits. However, as I pointed out in the United Airlines case, it might not always result with an extra profit but with huge losses. Nevertheless, because the companies’ intent is to maximize their profits which is good for their own interests, we can conclude that overbooking is ethical from the view of egoism even though the consequences are not always positive. It is needless to say that for customers in overall, overbooking is unethical because it is mostly against their own

     The descriptive claim made by Psychological Egoists is that humans, by nature, are motivated only by self-interest. Any act, no matter how altruistic it may seem on the outside is actually only a disguise for a selfish desire such as recognition, avoiding guilt, reward or sense of personal ‘goodness’ or morality. For example, Mother Teresa is just using the poor for her own long-term spiritual gain. Being a universal claim, it could falter with a single counterexample. And being that I believe this claim to be bunk I will tell you why!

There are many different types of ethical egoism: Personal ethical egoism, Individual ethical egoism, Universal ethical egoism, Categorical egoism, and Hypothetical egoism. Personal ethical egoism is the belief that one should act for

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.

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

2. Egoism is the consequentialist theory that an action is right when it promotes the individual’s best interests. Proponents of this theory base their view on the alleged fact that human beings are, by nature, selfish (the doctrine of psychological egoism). Critics of egoism argue that (a) psychological egoism is

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 claims that all our actions can be reduced to self-interest. This is a controversial moral theory which sometimes can be detrimental. Without a well-defined framework of the nature of self-interest, ethical egoism enlarges the animalistic nature of humanity in which can result in unfavorable consequences. Ethical egoism also fails to provide a solution when a conflict of interest arises. By only acting out of one’s self

Individual Ethical Egoism holds that “…for every person X and every action Y, X ought to do Y and only Y if it is in the overall self-interest of a particular person Z”, while Universal Ethical Egoism holds that “…for every person X and every action Y, X ought to do Y if and only if Y is in the overall self-interest of X” (Sterba 93). An Individual Ethical Egoist would argue that all people should do whatever benefits individual (“my”) self-interest while a Universal Ethical Egoist would argue that everyone should do what is in his own interests. The main difference between Individual and Universal Ethical Egoism – as their names imply – is universalizability. Whereas Individualists do not concern themselves with the collective well-being of society, Universalists believe that everyone will be better off if each person does what is in his best interest. Individualists tend to think in terms of specifics while Universalists tend to think about the “big

After studying many different ethical schools of thought, I have further affirmed, for myself at least, that Ethical Egoism is the best and most natural personal philosophy to follow. While the principles of most other philosophies and ethics are not horrible or absurd, they are not as fitting as the principles and teachings of ethical egoism and Niccolo Machiavelli. As humans, we should accept the realization that we are all pursuing our wants, desires, and pleasures. This is not a shameful or wrong thing, it is only natural. We, as humans, simply wish to lead a good life, and the best component of a good life is achieving our desires and goals.

At times, ethical egoism can benefit the larger group, as in a doctor in a rural town with free rent and a captive audience. The city provides the rent, the doctor the care, but all benefit.

In this paper I will be discussing implementing university affirmative action policies - policies that favour members of typically discriminated and disadvantaged groups through easier admission criterion - and justifying them as they not only serve as compensation for historical injustices, but are also beneficial for society as a whole. I will also be rebutting the viewpoint that affirmative action is never justified as compensation for historical injustices due to the non-identity principle.