First of all, we must make a differentiation between Ethical egoism and Physiological Egoism. In the firs one talks about that people ought to act in a self-interesting way, and the second one is the fact tat people act in a self-interesting way. Even though sometimes we fell that we should do things for others, the theory of ethical egoism is accepted because it is not promoting personal interests over others interests. There are some arguments that help support this idea. One of the most important arguments is the Argument that altruism is self-defeating.
The action of duty must exclude the influence of inclination so it may only be influenced by the objectivity of the law and therefore subjectively respected by us as good. Kant then goes on to confront the claim that moral worth is linked to agreeable condition and the promotion of happiness by stating that the moral worth of an action lies in the principle and not the effect of the action. Kant claimed that agreeable conditions and happiness can be brought about by too many other causes that do not require human rationality, and that human rationality is the only place where the “supreme and unconditional good” (P.2) can
With utilitarianism a person makes a decision based on the best results, and what is best for the most amounts of people. With deontology a person makes a decision depending on what he or she thinks is morally correct, not necessarily based on the best results for the people, but more for the well being of that person. The similarities between the three theories all deal with results. These theories all work toward the best result depending on what someone believes the best result may be. Many people will take different sides when it comes to a decision that benefits either the present or future, whether a person’s decision is the best for the moment or best for the future is what differentiates these theories.
Virtue ethics emphasizes the role of one's character and the virtues that one's character embodies for determining or evaluating ethical behavior. Virtue Ethics does not merely adopt a set of rules; it changes depending on the decision makers themselves who form the framework for this theory. Virtue ethics is the most realistic and holistic and flexible among the three theories, primarily because it employs the concept of virtues and not rules. Sometimes, moral dilemmas have no answer. However, followers of Deontology and Consequentialism may argue that there is a right or wrong thing to do even in such situations.
E.g. the life of beloved relatives seems intuitively more important than the life of strangers. Deontology judges the moral worth of an action based on the action’s inherent intentions and its adhe- rence to rules. Actions can therefore be intrinsically good or bad without considering the conse- quences. Only actions that contain features which make them suitable to be universal laws are morally good (categorical imperative).
‘the good life’. Whether an action is deemed to be right or otherwise depends on its net contribution to the attainment of this state of being. The processes in question here include being a just person and fulfilling obligations to those we have relationships with, where doing actions of justice as well as fulfilling one’s obligations to others may or may not lead one closer to the ideal human state depending on the teachings of each philosopher. The three philosophers have different interpretations and different values they place on these virtues. For Socrates, upholding justice leads to this state, while for Epictetus, it is about being in accord with nature.
The theory’s central question is: how we ought to act. Through a cost-benefit analysis, impartial decisions on actions should be made as long as the end result measures an increase of happiness for the majority. To the contrary, Kantian ethics focus on the intrinsic value and moral standing of human beings as rational agents with autonomy; therefore, they must be treated equally and with dignity. An action is not made right according to its consequences but on the consistency of one’s ethical course of action by means of reasoning to attain the right behavior. The main concepts behind Kantian theory are generated from the Categorical Imperative, used as an ethical rule for decision-making to determine the right action.
Unlike Rawls, Nozick sees flaws in the difference principle. To him, it is not considered unjust to allow poor people to starve. Nozick actually believes in the opposite of what government should do in this scenario. He sees a government with the power to distribute economic and social goods to the lesser advantaged, as too powerful and unjust. Nozick’s idea of just actions is based off of the idea of voluntary exchanges.
Kant argues that any action cannot be moral unless the motives are moral. For each of these philosophies, the question of living the "good life" is an intricate part of the belief system. For the Utilitarians, living a life that benefited as many people as possible, in essence, a life that caused the greatest widespread good results would be considered a life of virtue. For Kant, the only moral action is one that is done entirely because of obligation. He also makes the distinction between motives, saying that an action can be "in accord with duty" and still be immoral.
Virtue Theory, Utilitarianism, and Deontological Ethics Comparison ETH/316 April 16, 0213 INSTRUCTOR: Virtue Theory, Utilitarianism, and Deontological Ethics Comparison Virtue Theory, Utilitarianism, and Deontological Ethics are ethical systems that at work well for people. They are designed to help people to live more moral and ethical lives once that definition is reached. Each of these systems is the same in this regard but as each individual person is different so a group of people’s ideas are of what is moral and what is ethical and how to live by a standard. Two similarities are very certain right away in these systems. They all have founders, and they all try to set a standard of what is most important, and they try to keep that in perspective as the most important value.