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.
Which are the key points in Kantian Ethics which raises the question that maybe Kantian ethics isn’t a good approach to this? A counter argument for the above argument in support the statement that ‘Kant’s ethical theory is a good approach to euthanasia is the fact the moral value of an action comes from the action itself. This is because it’s a deontological argument. This means it’s intrinsically correct it’s not swayed by emotion. This is good when considering euthanasia because there is bound to be a lot of emotion involved when trying to decide whether it’s wrong or right to go forward with euthanasia for the person itself or family member having to choose.
Next on the basis of James Rachel’s argument against ethical egoism will try to answer the question posed. This essay will also discuss the common sense view is the most appropriate way to act in most of the cases. Ethical Egoism is a normative theory, a theory which states how one should behave. It states that promotion of one’s own good is in accordance with morality. In other way we can state that it is always moral to promote self-interest and it is not moral not to promote it.
We promote goodness and happiness using nature and experience, we can work out thus, that murder, for example, is wrong because committing murder does not cause happiness. Ergo, Ethical Naturalism produces universal laws which can be used as a benchmark to measure our own and other people’s moral conduct. Meta-ethics on the other hand believes that no ethical language is universal and objective. Non-naturalists and non-cognitivists such as Cambridge philosopher G. E. Moore believe that ethical language is subjective, as by claiming that they are objective is committing the ‘naturalistic fallacy’. This states that it is a mistake to define ‘good’ in terms of things that exist (natural properties) that we already
According to this theory, what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa: there are no moral absolutes. There is also an individual form of moral relativism. Thus, this is where morality varies between individuals, it is called subjectivism. Subjectivism, on the other hand, involves our beliefs or perceptions, in figuring out what is good and what is bad. Narveson explains subjectivity through morals, which he believes to be “subjective.” Narveson believes that “they are merely a “matter of opinion,” there being no such thing as moral knowledge, nothing about can be really correct or incorrect” (Narveson, MM, p. 3).Thus, whether peanut butter tastes good, for example, varies from person to person; for some people this is true, for others it is false.
Off the Precipice into the Gorge: Why Utilitarianism Can’t Save Us Introduction In his article, “A Critique of Utilitarianism” Bernard Williams is concerned that consequentialism has found plausibility in people’s minds due to a misunderstanding of and negative reaction to non-consequentialist theories. [1] Though he does not offer an alternative ethical theory, Williams successfully takes on the project of exploring how utilitarianism and those who uncritically embrace it have accepted an unworkable standard for defining right actions. Williams offers a unique and penetrating thesis: to define right action only by reference to whether it produces a good “state of affairs” necessitates a fundamental clash between an agent’s moral character and that allegedly right action. [2] In its attempt to compensate and maintain viability as a moral theory, utilitarianism smuggles into its calculus the agent’s non-utilitarian-based moral feelings. 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.
That goal is to do what is morally right, if it be through pleasure to avoid pain. This defines utilitarianism. Specific kinds of rules that tells a person what is right and why it is right defines deontology. A good person and doing the right thing, defines virtue. Even though each theory has its own unique way of portraying the act of doing ‘the right thing’, they seem to do just that.
In Stephen Hicks’s ‘Rand’s Ethical Theory: Reason and Ethics’, Rand focuses on several human virtues or values as the basis for her theory of ethical egoism. Furthermore, he states that in Rand’s view, the following virtues are central to the life of an ethical human being: rationality, productiveness, honesty, independence, integrity, justice, selfishness and pride. I find that the more I read about and from Rand, the more I tend to agree with her opinions and understand her. At first glance, her views might seem too extreme or too critical- or at least, that is how I conceived them. However, I am starting to comprehend her point of view and see things through her perspective more clearly (especially after watching her interview with Mike Wallace).
Self-Assessment Ethics Ethics is defined as, “a way to examine or study moral behaviors” (Morrison, 2011, p. 22). Ethical principles were designed to give guidelines to healthcare professional and society when faced with ethical dilemmas. Ethics can sometimes be a tricky thing. When caring for patients and addressing employees sometimes there can be a gray area within ethical decision making. I do not believe ethic is always black and white and sometimes certain decisions health care providers make can might be considered unethical but made for the right reasons.
William Graham Sumner is not correct to say that, “The ‘right’ way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down.” These “Folkways” are not a good guide to moral truth. Cultural relativist, William Graham Sumner is not correct to say that, “The ‘right’ way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down.” These “Folkways” are not a good guide to moral truth. Two arguments will be presented to support this thesis. Firstly, Sumner’s statement is invalid as his claim is self-refuting. Secondly, moral absolutes do exist.