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.
In other way we can state that it is always moral to promote self-interest and it is not moral not to promote it. So it is a moral duty of every person to pursue his or her own interest. According to Ethical Egoism, there is only one ultimate principle of conduct, the principle of self-interest, and this principle sums up all of one’s natural duties and obligations. The only way, through which you can help others, according to Ethical Egoism, if it is in someone’s best interest to help others. Ethical Egoism talks only about the self-interest which is better for the person over long run.
Ethical Egoism We will be discussing the strengths and weaknesses of ethical egoism, but before we begin we first must understand what ethical egoism is and what is involved. Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest. Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others.
The weakness of Virtue Ethics outweighs its strengths – Discuss. Virtue ethics is the ethics of us as persons and argues that morality is not about duties. There are a number of arguments for and against virtue ethics, and most for, argue for the formation and growth of us via phronesis or practical wisdom, which allows us to make the right decisions by using our conscience. Virtue ethics is mainly supported by Aristotle. It is based on different virtues that a person should have, so that they can then reach Euadamonia.
David Hume and Immanuel Kant on Morality When discussing the morality of ethics there are many different schools of thought by which we can attempt to justify why we think or do things the way we do; why we value the things we value; and what makes our actions right or wrong. In this essay I will address the flaws in the assumptions of Immanuel Kant’s theories on morality by reason, using David Hume’s beliefs on morality by feelings and material from the Subjectivist school of thought. The Kantian view on morality places extreme emphasis on reason rather than what we desire as humans. In other words, people act in accordance to what is their duty, not by how they feel or what they personally believe to be right. This is in direct violation with David Hume’s stance on morality.
This is an idea which is absolute and according to Kant, the way we decide the morality of an action. Kantian ethics explains that for something to be good, the only true motivation behind it would be Good Will, with desire or instinct considered and the only purpose being to fulfil your duty and act morally. These moral principles are thought to be categorical imperatives which everyone should abide by even if they are of no benefit to them, There are three principles of the categorical imperative, the first being the universal law. It was believed that you should only act on a maxim, which is a personal law or rule. If you would not want the rule to be universalised, you should not be completing the action.
According to Kant, right actions are not done by following inclinations, impulses or obeying the principle of greatest happiness but are done simply and purely from the sense of duty. Kessler says that some ethical truths and norms are appropriate to everyone in the society, and therefore, people should always act morally irrespective of the outcome for their morals. In deontology ethics, actions are done for the sake of duty. The intrinsic moral feature determines the rightness or wrongness of the act taken by individuals. The duty should always be done by taking the right.
This can be interpreted as self interest is part of, or is, morality, which can lead to justifying actions which go against the consensus of society e.g. lying, stealing and killing. For this reason Kant believes it is better to live according to reason as opposed to desire. For example, if you wanted to buy something which was more expensive than you could afford your reason would tell you it wasn’t possible to have it, not desire as it cannot realise this. Kant sees this as similar to making moral decisions as the moral choice is not always the desired choice and therefore not in your self interest.
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, cheating is an immoral act, but for some it will be right to do whatever they need to do to pass the exam. The question states; how can we determine the ethics or classify those actions or way of thinking from a Kantian, ethical egoist, or utilitarian point of view? A Kantian perspective is based on the Kantian doctrine, which is a specific example of Deontological ethical theories, defined from the Greek deon, “duty,” and logos, “science.” Deontological explains the important relationship that exists between duty and the morality of how humans act. As stated by his founder Immanuel Kant, Kantian doctrine indicated= that something that we do for duty has moral value worth. Also, Kant sustain that reason is the most important concept to identify what is ethical in a moral universal law, and that nothing have to be done because of self interest, utility, inclination, feeling or pity.