Then, how can we determine what is okay from that which is not according to our human nature? The nature of human beings is a very complex definition. What human nature may mean to me may not fit with one’s ethical reasoning of what human nature means to another. In this regard, however, human nature to me is anything in which the person freely chooses to do, think, and act on. However, going back to human nature and ethics, we need to clearly define that although human nature differs among different cultures and societies, human nature must not be raped of its value for choosing good, and behaving on what brings the best solution for one’s problems in life.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self with no higher regard than one has for others as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and the self to a status not granted to others, but that one also should not as altruism does sacrifice one's own interests to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective), but utilitarianism is called agent-neutral (i.e.
There also are arguments against Ethical Egoism. There is the argument that Ethical Egoism cannot handle conflict of interest. Also that it is logically inconsistent and is unacceptably arbitrary. From all the information provided Ethical Egoism fails as a moral theory. I do not believe every action we take is intended to be self rewarding.
Despite of how influential is our own culture on our beliefs and behaviours we must be aware that we are not coming from the one and only “valuable” culture in the world. People often tend to believe that their own values and beliefs are the only “right” ones as they are embedded in their particular cultures. We must be aware that each of us, each singular culture might shine in a different way, but that does not mean someone else’s light is less bright than ours. We must respect, mind and understand others differences in order to communicate efficiently and realize that these dissimilarities do not makes us weak ,they are actually the source of our strength. Frameworks for cultural analyses In order to acquire better understanding of the different cultures,
When we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally. Typically in any deontological system, our duties, rules, and obligations are determined by God. Being moral is thus a matter of obeying God. Deontological moral systems typically stress the reasons why certain actions are performed. Simply following the correct moral rules is often not sufficient; instead, we have to have the correct motivations.
The terms morality and ethics are not always interchangeable. Ethics is broader. Ethics deals with what is generally right and wrong and morality with what is right and wrong in relations between people. There is ethical behavior that does not bother with whether it is moral or immoral. Decisions involving other people are moral choices.
I may also be tempted to exempt myself and others from the rules convinced that the rules were meant for others or that the actions I am taking really are fair for everyone. My ambitions may overpower my sense of justice. When this happens, I may overlook abuse of power by those in my own social groups. My blind spot is that I put too much faith in a process that results in a fair outcome for all. I tend to believe that ethical decisions are produced by the application of a fair system despite the fact that equal access for all isn’t always attainable resulting in unfair treatment.
For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance. By accommodating an agent’s moral feelings only when they are in accord with utility is indicative of a deeper failure to recognize that such feelings are often expressions of the agent’s own projects and commitments. Thus, to achieve an objective standard of right action, utilitarianism ultimately sacrifices the agent’s integrity by making right action irrelevant to those projects and commitments. The first part of my exposition focuses on what Williams sees as the reason for the popularity of consequentialist ethical theories, which is rooted in an illicit jump from thinking about moral kinds of actions to thinking about moral degrees of outcomes. The rest of my exposition explains how this jump directly leads to the
Self Interest or Privilege Superson approaches the moral skeptic in a way in which helps us to better understand the skeptic’s view but at the same time, by developing a better understanding of the moral skeptic, she is better fit to defeat it. The moral skeptic is aware of morality, yet lacks any interest in abiding by it, rather acting in self-interest. The traditional model of the skeptic dichotomizes morality with self-interest, because it is assumed that the skeptic endorses expected utility and the motives he believes is rational to have (ones that are most in conflict with morality). Rational actions go hand in hand with self-interested actions, and this is identified with promoting the satisfaction of any of one’s desires or preferences but moral ones, or with maximizing one’s expected utility. According to Superson, in order for self-interest to successfully defeat the skeptic it must defeat both action and disposition skepticism, which is where it lacks.
In general, on a popular argument for ethical relativism would be the untenability of objectivism. It is a persuasive justification for moral relativism because it is the best alternative following the failure of objectivism. The fact that moral objectivists themselves are uncertain, incongruent and unsettled on a standard moral system is the primary catalyst encouraging moral skepticism (IEP, Argument for Moral Relativism). Cultural relativism outlines that “an action is morally right, relative to a culture, just because it is right according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” Conversely, if “an action is morally wrong, relative to a culture, just because it is wrong according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” (Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group.