Moral Egoism Vs Utilitarianism

579 Words3 Pages
Moral Egoism vs Utilitarianism When most people think of ethics (or morals), they think of rules for distinguishing between right and wrong. The most common way of defining "ethics": norms for conduct that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Most people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in church, or in other social settings. Although most people acquire their sense of right and wrong during childhood, moral development occurs throughout life and human beings pass through different stages of growth as they mature. Two ethical theories I will compare and contrast in this essay are: Moral Egoism and Utilitarianism. Moral egoism is the belief that an action is only morally justified if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to the person or group performing the action. Under the strictest philosophy of moral egoism, rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, and many other things most people consider immoral, are justified. It is always correct for a person to do what is in their self-interest, even if it harms someone else. A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them. (Doing drugs might be an example. It might seem satisfactory at the moment, but ultimately, it damages their body.) A person must only do what seems to be in their best interest. Under moral egoism, no moral duty exists to anyone other than self. Utilitarianism asserts that a person should choose his or her actions according to what is best for all people. In other words, a person should try to cause the most possible happiness for the most people possible. Utilitarianism focuses mostly on consequences of actions. You should only do an action if it contributes to the happiness of the world. For example: Stealing that candy bar will make my happiness go
Open Document