Egoism And Moral Skepticism By James Rachels

Vaccination was first introduced globally for small pox and later on extended to other communicable diseases which are now known as vaccine preventable disease. Vaccination is beneficial both for individuals and community. This bring us to the ethical dilemma - Vaccination of a healthy child with the intention of protecting both the individual child and the community at the same time exposing the child to the theoretical risk of exposure to disease products whether live, attenuated or killed. There was a time when people never questioned the government or their physicians. Now because of more public awareness and accessibility to medical information, they are questioning the safety aspects of vaccines.

Psychological egoism is the interpretation that humans are always inspired by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. Psychological egoism, which was widely recognized by psychologists and philosophers states that all human actions are motivated by selfish needs to benefit themselves. According to psychological egoists true altruism does not exist because the consequence of such an act leads to an increase in personal happiness. However, Joel Feinberg does not agree with that theory and in his essay he disagreed with the thesis that altruism

Vaccines are among the most affordable and successful public health tools for preventing disease, disability, and sometimes death. Not only do they protect a vaccinated individual from developing a potentially deadly disease, but they also lead to protecting an entire community by reducing the spread of infectious agents. Although vaccines have many beneficial factors to it, there are still some problems in using them. Many vaccines may include side effects that can lead to autism or even death. Vaccinations have many benefits including the prevention of certain diseases but they also can cause issues and be very riskful in using them to treat or prevent a disease. Some of these issues include the ethic dilemma behind the subject.

Since its initial launch in 1994, Amazon.com has now become the biggest e-commerce store in the world. Despite the slow start during its early years, Amazon has skyrocketed its growth around 2014 with its $90 billion revenue and 154,100 employees (“The Amazon Effect”). The increasing popularity of the company is backed up by its convenience and cheap factors that are present in e-commerce stores especially Amazon. The rapid and sudden grow of Amazon pushes the company to expand its factories and internal system. Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, has been known for his powerful and authoritarian style of leadership. However, as of now, Amazon has raised several controversies regarding its actions from tax avoidances, predatory pricing, and the mistreatment of workers. These controversies grabbed a lot of attention especially for tech enthusiasts and engineers. Even though these controversies are generally labeled as misconducts and bad practices, it turns out these practices are not necessarily unethical when seen from the three ethical perspectives: Kantian theory, Utilitarianism, and Ethical Egoism perspective. These three common perspectives in the study of ethics can be used to evaluate the ethicality of the internal practices and effects of Amazon.

Utilitarian theory is the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contributions to overall effectiveness. Since utilitarian theory is mainly about reducing suffering, but maximizing the utility. I believe in this scenario using this theory the vaccine would be rationed for those in the U.S. society who contribute to there community and help others. It would be hard to judge, but based on utilitarian reasoning there are some people who would be more helpful. The first people would be caretakers like physicians, doctors, therapists, philanthropists, and scientists who could maybe replicate the vaccine and reduce the suffering.

Recently an anti-vaccination movement has sparked a worldwide discussion about both the safety of vaccines and the responsibility of people to vaccinate. Recent outbreaks of preventable diseases have caused both fear and anger from people on both sides of the issue. These same outbreaks have also served to cause significant political tension between those against vaccines, who do not want their right to choose compromised, and many proponents of vaccines, who are calling for mandatory vaccinations.

     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!

“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.

More than ever vaccines are met with a high suspicions and very little education on the realities of vaccination success.

Psychological egoism is the view that everyone always acts selfishly. It describes human nature as being wholly self-centered and self-motivated. Psychological egoism is different from ethical egoism in their “direction of fit” to the world. Psychological ego-ism is a factual theory. It aims to fit the world. In the world is not how psychological ego-ism says it is because someone acts unselfishly, then something is wrong with psycho-logical egoism. In my opinion this argument is completely wrong and unsound.

There is a certain innate desire to help others, just as others will feel that same fulfillment for returning that aid. At the same time, however, there is also an inherent yearning to seek out one’s own best interest. This brings about a discussion regarding the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. To understand the similarities and differences, one must first understand the two concepts including their natures, as well as their doctrines of motivation.

Without a distinct framework, ethical egoism fails as a moral theory to assist moral decision making because it endorses the animalistic nature of humanity, fails to provide a viable solution to a conflict of interest, and is proved to be an evolutionary unstable moral strategy.

The theory of psychological egoism is indeed plausible. The meaning of plausible in the context of this paper refers to the validity or the conceivability of the theory in question, to explain the nature and motivation of human behavior (Hinman, 2007). Human actions are motivated by the satisfaction obtained after completing a task that they are involved in. For example, Mother Teresa was satisfied by her benevolent actions and activities that she spent her life doing. As Hinman (2007) points out, she was likely to reduce in activity if she experienced any dissatisfaction in her endeavors.

Descriptive egoism holds that for each individual, there is only one ultimate aim survival and the betterment of the sole individual based on their own hierarchical principles.

There is a global trend of increase in preventable disease due to the rising standard of medical care and improvement in human living condition. With the implementation of routine immunization program, vaccines have been proved to be very successful in defending from childhood communicable disease. However, issue exists in the maintenance of immunization coverage. Anti-vaccers, which vary in their educational background, physical condition and financial situation, challenge the necessity, safety and tolerability of vaccination. Being affected by their personal perceptions and extrinsic influences, these people decide to delay the administration or refuse to vaccinate their children at all. This essay will discuss this contemporary global trend and the issue arising from it, including the reduction in hospitalization and the concern of anti-vaccers. It will then examine the role of ethical social work as a possible response to it.