The Three Reasons Of The Consequentialist Theory Of Ethical Egoism

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.

Clearly, the ideals of the ethical egoist pose extreme political problems. Frankly, the entire foundation of a political system is the understanding of justice. The existence and cooperation of a political body relies on justice to provide a common ground from which practical political deliberations can take place. With the understanding that there is no natural moral authority, humans find it necessary to put together and establish the social rules necessary for social cooperation. That

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

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

No. Kant’s 2nd categorical imperatives stated that we need to treat humanity always an end and never as a means. (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury, 2009, pg77) According to the case, Ford did not put a human’s life as the first priority; in fact, they placed a monetary value on a human’s life. They are using the human life to determine whether their decision is profitable in the cost-benefit analysis which is against Kantianism.

According to James Rachel, an author of “Elements of Moral Philosophy,” there two main arguments exist against psychological egoism.

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.

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.

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

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.

There are two basic kinds of egoism, there is ethical egoism and there is psychological egoism. These two different forms of egoism are different because ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that what is moral is to be done in self-interest. This is different from psychological egoism which states specifically that people will only act in their own self-interest. Ethical egoism is broken up into two forms. There is act egoism and Rule egoism. Act egoism says

A true ethical egoist would argue against the hypothetical egoist. He would not look to increase the happiness of others, only that of himself. A true ethical egoist must not become a hypothetical egoist, because then he is no longer an egoist. Nor should he become an individual egoist, because it would not be ethical. In addition, the truest ethical egoist must not publicize, or even try to persuade, others of his own policy. When an individual advocates his own doctrine upon others, he is then persuading them to do the same. Hence, each person would begin to pursue his or her own interest and thus it would not be to the persuader’s advantage, for it will harm his own interest. A true ethical egoist would convince people to do otherwise, and in return, this will serve the individual’s greatest interests.

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