The Three Argument Of Ethical Egoism

     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!

Rachels (2003) described ethical egoism to having three arguments which makes it a valid ethical theory to abide by. One of the arguments explained how it is in one’s self-interest to not have help from others (Rachels, 2003). It is considered degrading to have someone offer his or her “charity” (Rachels, 2003, p.194) in attempts to make one’s life better. A person does not want to be regarded as incapable and in need of someone’s help. If everyone was to adapt an ethical egoist point of view, no one would be seen as inferior and everyone would be given an equal chance to succeed (Rachels, 2003). If strong affirmative action programs were employed to the NESA program everyone would undermine

Self-interest is an important concept in human interaction, however, it 's often expressed synonymously with selfishness, and for that reason selfishness also becomes a key, although distinct concept that requires differentiation in order to not confuse the two in a manner in which they appear to derive from and reciprocate with each other.The actualization of this apparent synonymity arises from an ever expanding void of underdeveloped focus (and often the intentional

James Rachels introduces in his written works, Egoism and Moral Skepticism, two different theories of human nature: psychological egoism and ethical egoism. The theory of psychological egoism refers to the view that all human actions are self-centered. On the other hand, the theory of ethical egoism is the idea that we are not obligated to do anything other than what is in our interest. Most individuals would consistently believe in ethical egoism because most generally care about the well-being of others.

Whistleblowing implies the imperative necessity to alert others (company) about immorality issues, including illegal activity, happening inside the organization. For the employee who decides to blow the whistle “usually brings to he/she undesirable consequences.” Some consequences are like threats, loss of employment, and social rejection. (Chiu,R. 2003)

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.

Good post!!! Ethical egoism and inadepuate morality theory are very similar. Moral theory is based more on rightness and goodness. Ethical egoism is being aware of your own self-interest. When makeing decisions you want to take both ethical egoim and moral theory into consideration before you make your final choice.

Utilitarianism and ethical egoism are a complete opposite of ethical systems. Ethical egoism stating that unselfishness does not exist, and that is the answer to the absolute form of ethics, whereas singer argues that being unselfish is the key to obtaining the true form of righteous morals. I will contend that, Browne’s point of ethics is far superior than of singers, and provides an answer for all morals.

Egoism is the theory that one's self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one's own action (Thiroux and Krasemann, pg. 30). Egoism is basically the idea of self-interest and has two main forms, ethical and psychological. Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position surmises that you ought to do what is in your own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims people can only act in their self-interest. (Thiroux and Krasemann, pg. 31-32). In my opinion, psychological egoism is egoism being the way it is and ethical egoism is egoism the way it should be. However, if we are speaking of egoism in general, it is the way it is. The text explains that there exists a “difference between how people do act and how they should act” (Thiroux and Krasemann, pg.

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

The theory of psychological egoism shows that, at the center of each willful human activity, there is the inspiration of self-interest – that we do things on the grounds that they profit us. It doesn't propose how to live, yet rather how individuals do really go about their lives, regularly. This theory is extremely controversial because of the ease it decreases all activities to egomaniacal thinking. Extracting from that perception, we can extend that all the great done by individuals is an outcome of egotistical intentions. The theory utterly denies both the present altruism, and the self-less noble in individuals. Altruism is the bestowal of a profit by one individual to an additional in a caring manner. Such practices cost the individual

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

Ethical egoism makes the rightness or wrongness of actions depend on facts about one’s self-interest. It is the view that you should always act to bring about your self-interest. It does not claim that all persons, in fact, seek their own self-interest, it only claims that we should or ought to seek our

Whistle-blowing is defined as when an employee believes that their employee has done something wrong, or that may be harmful to the public, and they feel obligated to report these actions to the government, media, or higher levels within the organization (Lawrence & Weber, 2014.) This type of reporting of unethical or illegal behavior, seems that it would be a “no brainer” that an employee should in fact, report it to someone. However, our text identifies four main conditions that must be met before an employee is morally justified by informing the government or media:

The other two types of whistle blowing that occur are personal and impersonal, where the wrongdoing is be done upon the whistle blower and impersonal where harm is observed upon another. In many cases whistle blowing is believed to occur when an employee’s loyalty or attachment is in opposition to their job commitment and job satisfaction. When whistle blowing happens it may have a detrimental effect on relationships between the whistleblower and their co-workers. This can create enemies between fellow employees; the whistle blower may be avoided and mistrusted. “Indeed, whistle-blowing can be discouraged or even punished when the image of the whistle blower is seen as “disloyal” to the organization posing risk of normalizing wrongdoing and ultimately derive the public interest.” (Ashforth & Anand, 2003)