Category Archives: Ethical Egoism

Last Updated on March 19, 2022 by QCity Editorial Stuff

In philosophy, there are two main ethical theories: utilitarianism and ethical egoism. Both of these theories have their pros and cons, but they ultimately differ in their focus. Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an action, while ethical egoism focuses on the individuals interests. Lets take a closer look at these two theories to see which one is more suitable for you.

Both utilitarianism and ethical egoism are ethical theories that deal with morality. However, they have different approaches to how they believe people should behave. Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an action to determine if it is moral or not, while ethical egoism dictates that people should always act in their self-interest. This can lead to different outcomes in terms of what is considered right or wrong. It is important to understand the differences between these two theories when making decisions about how you want to live your life.

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that evaluates actions based on their consequences. The principle of utilitarianism holds that the best action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory has been influential in both moral and political philosophy and continues to be a topic of debate among philosophers today.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that holds that the best action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This theory is often invoked in cases where there are difficult ethical decisions to make, such as those involving healthcare or environmental policy. Critics of utilitarianism argue that it can lead to unethical outcomes, such as sacrificing the few for the many. Proponents of utilitarianism, however, argue that it provides a clear and logical way to make ethical decisions.

Egoism is the ethical theory that moral agents should do what is in their self-interest. Egoists believe that each person should pursue her or his self-interest with little regard for other peoples interests, and they typically think its irrational to act in a way contrary to ones self-interest. The term ethical egoism refers to normative egoism, which is the view that people ought morally to be egoistic. Ethical egoist philosophers say we have no reasonapart from our desireto help others because there are few if any circumstances under which we would want someone else (e.g., a stranger) to help us.

Ethical egoism is the belief that an individual should do what is in their self-interest. This philosophy can be traced back to ancient Greece when it was originally called ethical hedonism. The idea has been revived many times since then. The most recent resurgence of ethical egoism has come from business leaders like Peter Drucker and Jack Welch who argue that companies must act in the best interest of shareholders, even if this means short-term sacrifices for employees or other stakeholders. Ethical egoist philosophers include William James, Ayn Rand, and Richard Dawkins.

1. Utilitarianism is a moral theory which states that the right action is the one that maximizes utility for all people, while Ethical Egoism focuses on maximizing self-interest.

2. Utilitarianism emphasizes minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure, whereas Ethical Egoism does not mention this concern.

3. Utilitarianism values equality among individuals, but Ethical Egoism does not.

4. Utilitarianists focus on doing what will produce the best consequences in society, but Ethical Egoists are concerned with what will produce the best consequences for oneself.

5. The utilitarians goal is to promote happiness or the greatest good in society; however, according to ethical egoists there should be no concern about promoting anything other than personal happiness.

6. When it comes to morality and ethics, utilitarian thinkers try to do whatever produces the most good for everyone involved; meanwhile, ethical egoists believe that an individual should strive only for their interests.

7. Utilitarianism is the idea that you should do what will bring about the greatest happiness for all people.

8. Ethical egoism is the belief that its in your best interest to act ethically and not worry about other people.

9. Utilitarianism focuses on consequences, while ethical egoism focuses on intentions.

10. The difference between utilitarian and ethical egoist approaches to morality are based on who they see as being important.

1. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states the best action is one that maximizes utility.

2. The name Utilitarianism was first used by John Stuart Mill in 1861.

3. A utilitarian would argue that its morally acceptable to kill one person if it means saving five lives.

4. Utilitarianism doesnt say anything about intentions only outcomes matter.

5. There are two types of utilitarianism, act and rule-based.

6. Act utilitarians focus on maximizing utility based on each situation while rule-based utilitarians focus on maximizing utility based on principles and rules.

1. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states the best action is one that maximizes utility.

2. The name Utilitarianism was first used by John Stuart Mill in 1861.

3. A utilitarian would argue that its morally acceptable to kill one person if it means saving five lives.

4. Utilitarianism doesnt say anything about intentions only outcomes matter.

5. There are two types of utilitarianism, act and rule-based.

6. Act utilitarians focus on maximizing utility based on each situation while rule-based utilitarians focus on maximizing utility based on principles and rules.

1. Ethical egoism is the belief that each person should act in his or her self-interest.

2. The term was coined by 19th-century philosopher and psychologist, William James.

3. It is also called rational egoism or ethical hedonism.

4. Unlike moral egoists who believe everyones goal should be to maximize their pleasure, ethical egoists believe an individual should pursue what makes them happy but not at the expense of others.

5. Ethical egoist philosophers include Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, John Locke, Jeremy Bentham, and Ayn Rand.

6. Some people think that this philosophy can lead to selfishness while others think it leads to a more prosperous economy because it encourages competition among businesses for customers based on quality instead of price alone.

Ethical egoism is the idea that you should act in your self-interest. The utilitarians would argue, Whats good for me? But if Im only thinking about myself, what does this do to society? Utilitarianism says its okay because my actions will help others too. Ethical egoists might say they are helping society by not doing anything wrong or immoral and living a happy life while utilitarianism argues that both ethical ideologies can coexist together. One could be an ethical egoist but also have some concern for other peoples well-being through their choice of lifestyle or career path. It just depends on how much weight one places on each ideology when making decisions.

References:

Resource 01: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism.asp#:~:textResource 02: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism

See the article here:

Differences Between Utilitarianism and Ethical Egoism

What Is Ethical Egoism?

Ethical egoism is a philosophical concept premised on the ethical justification to do what is best for oneself. In general, ethical egoism argues that it is ethically correct to prioritize the individual self (I) above others. The question then becomes, does an action or inaction benefit the individual self? According to this concept, determining what benefits the self will then determine ethical justifications. In other words, an ethical obligation to "I" supersedes the ethical considerations of others.

It is important to note that ethical egoism, as opposed to other forms of egoism, claims that humans ought to be self-interested. Ethical egoism is considered a normative theory of ethics because it makes a moral judgment about what is ethically right or wrong. Because ethical calculations or consequences are factored in the end result to determine ethical conclusions, ethical egoism falls under the umbrella of consequential ethical theory. Simply put, the consequences for oneself determine what is ethically correct and what one ought to do.

To better understand ethical egoism, it bares to understand what ethical egoism is not. If the phrase "take one for the team" seems problematic, that is because it is at odds with the concept of ethical egoism. Rather than sacrifice oneself for the team, an individual ought to consider the consequences and do what is best for oneself. Therefore, ethical egoism differs from another consequential ethical theory, utilitarianism. Analyzing utilitarianism, Henry Sidgwick, the 19th-century philosopher who wrote The Methods of Ethics in 1874, advances the idea of egoism concerning utilitarianism's emphasis on the greatest good for the greatest number. Sidgwick applies his method of ethics to differentiate from what ought to be versus what is as it stands. Furthermore, Sidgwick's ethical study and emphasis on ought versus is continues as he tries to reconcile egoism with utilitarianism, even extending his ethical analysis to politics. Considering politics as Sidgwick does and its relationship to ethics is an essential argument against ethical egoism.

Individuals do not exist in a vacuum but rather as part of society. Hence, some would argue that an individual cannot separate oneself from societal conduct or norms. Therefore, cultural, societal, and even economic parameters determine one's self-interest. In other words, how do people objectively measure maximizing the good per each individual if every individual is exercising ethical egoism (what they ought to do in benefit of oneself) over other individuals? This argument can be advanced further by questioning whether an individual objectively knows what is best or can distinguish between short-term and long-term consequences. Otherwise, people are to conclude that there are no universal morals since each individual ought to pursue one's own self-interest different from the interest of others.

The Prisoner's Dilemma, a well-known philosophical thought experiment, illustrates ethical egoism and its practical application. Although the Prisoner's Dilemma has variations, the basic setup involves two alleged partners in crime now held prisoners (A and B) in two separate cells; the two prisoners cannot coordinate with one another. Whichever prisoner confesses guilt will minimize the potential years sentenced. Keep in mind that the prisoners have no way of coordinating or knowing what the other prisoner will do.

This model complicates any comfortable notions about self-interest. It may appear evident that a confession from one prisoner to minimize a prison sentence would be in that prisoner's best self-interest; however, upon closer inspection, both prisoners would be better served not to confess. In other words, if both prisoners keep from confessing, then neither will have confessed to the alleged crime. Hence, their best self-interest is to act against their best self-interest; in addition, to act on one's best self-interest by confessing is not in one's best self-interests. Yes, it is counterintuitive and points to the contradictory possibilities within ethical egoism. Therefore, the Prisoner's Dilemma interrogates whether ethical egoism across the board with everyone acting in self-interest would be the best for everyone.

Psychological egoism is a philosophical concept that claims humans, by nature, are selfish and motivated by self-interest. In general, regardless of being fully aware or not, individuals will ultimately act in their self-interest by default. There are no ethical considerations, less so ethical obligations, to be self-interested. Humans are already predisposed to act in their self-interests; human nature is selfishness according to psychological egoism.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who authored Leviathan in 1651, claimed that humans are rationally self-interested by nature. Therefore, psychological egoism must be considered when evaluating moral and political philosophy. Moreover, psychological egoism pervades all individuals in a state of nature. Thus, unchecked humans would war against one another, fighting for power and resources. However, due to individuals being rationally self-interested, it would be in the best interest of each individual to enter into a social contract, according to Hobbes. For example, we respect the property and wellbeing of others only as far as it preserves our own property and wellbeing. Psychology egoism persists, whether in a state of nature or a society of laws because human self-interest will drive humans to fight for self-preservation and resources or contractually recognize an authority that ensures self-preservation and resources.

See more here:

Ethical Egoism vs. Psychological Egoism | What is Ethical Egoism ...

According to some, morality is about personal interest. They say things like, "What's morally right is whatever is good for me. I have no duties to others. The only duties I have are to myself."

An action X is morally right iff X promotes my (the speaker's) best interests at least as well as any alternative to X.

It is important to appreciate that EGO is a very different theory than SES. The implications of EGO have objective a posteriori truth conditions. Note that we can be mistaken about what is in our best interests. What is or is not in our best interests is something we discover as we mature.

It is also important to appreciate that EGO is an extremely popular theory. It is so popular, in fact, that there have been vigorous attempts to argue that the theory is true. Before turning to the Standards of Evaluation, let us consider some of these arguments.

Unfortunately, each of these arguments is unsound. Premise (1) of the Social Benefit Argument cannot be true if EGO is true, since if EGO is true it could not be the case that we should adopt the policy which promotes everyone's best interests. Ayn Rand's Argument blatantly commits the Fallacy of False Dilemma. Her view of Ethical Altruism is that it requires one to sacrifice one's life. But surely there are less onerous ethical theories which are nonetheless not egoistic in nature. It bears mentioning that heroes, those who risk or sacrifice their lives for others, are the exception, not the rule. The Intuition Argument is interesting. Essentially what it says is that EGO passes the Standard of Reflective Equilibrium. As we shall see, this is not the case. But the problem with the argument is that premise (1) is false. A theory may be consistent with common moral intuition, but that does not imply that the theory is true. We have already seen a number of examples where (some) peoples' intuition tracks the implications of a theory, but the theory turns out to be false for other reasons.

Showing that the arguments in favor of the theory are unsound does not mean that we're done, however. It doesn't follow that the theory is false. At best we can say that we have no reason to think that the theory is true. What we need to do is run EGO by the Standards of Evaluation to see how it fares.

Provided that we have a theory of best interests (for which we would need to consult with psychologists, biologists, sociologists, etc.), it seems that EGO passes Clarity.

Does the theory imply any contradictions? Consider that it may be in my best interests to cheat you out of your money, yet it is clearly not in your best interests that I cheat you out of your money. Since there can be conflicts of interests, EGO implies that there are conflicting (or contradictory) moral judgments. Thus,

It may be argued that the Conflict Argument begs the question against the Ethical Egoist. That is, EGO presupposes that actions can be both right and not right--right, insofar as the action is in one person's best interests, and not right insofar as the action is not in another person's best interests. If this is correct, then EGO does not fail Coherence. Instead, we have the following Reflective Equilibrium argument against EGO, which is a variation on The Conflict Argument. Call it "The Conflict Argument*".

This is a Reflective Equilibrium Argument because Premise (3) is not a point of logic such as a contradiction; it depends upon intuiton backed by further argument.

Since it is fair to charge that the Conflict Argument begs the question against the Ethical Egoist, we find that the problems for EGO emerge from Reflective Equilibrium considerations.

In addition to the Conflict Argument*, we have the equally problematic feature of the theory that it privileges the agent over anyone else.

We reject EGO because it fails Reflective Equilibrium.

View post:

Ethical Egoism | Philosophy

In Egoism and Moral Skepticism by James Rachels, the moral ideas of psychological egoism and ethical egoism are explained. These two ethical standpoints are different in that psychological egoism is more about how people think while ethical egoism is about how people ought to think. Both, though, are hard concepts to believe anyone in the human race can truly hold.

Psychological egoism is the idea that all men are selfish, and that we only do things for our own self-interests. Ethical egoism is the idea that people ought to only do things for their self-interests, and that we should only feel obligated to do things for ourselves, regardless of the effect it may have on others. Both of these ideas seem pretty self-centered and disgustingly inhumane. In my opinion, they are.

Psychological egoism is a terrible outlook on the human race, and it is not how we should be. It seems to be a sad outlook on our mindsets. It is a fair claim, considering deep down everything we do, even the most selfless things, are deep down pleasing for us in some way. As said by Shaver altruistic action is often revealed to be self-interested (Shaver). Even if we claim were doing something we do not want to do for someone else, deep down it will either benefit us in the long run or it will make us feel better about ourselves for doing something good for someone else. Either way, yes, the things we do all have some underlying benefit for ourselves, but it is not a good thing to look at the human race as people only trying to do things for their own benefit. That is not always someones only incentive for doing something, and we should not look at ourselves as beings only motivated in that conceited way.

Ethical egoism is even worse than psychological egoism. One would have to believe that the reason to pursue my good is the goodness of the thing I obtain (Moore). It is not just a bad way to look at the way people behave, but it is a selfish sort of mentality that we supposedly should feel obligated to have. For someone to be a real ethical egoist, they would have to have no compassion or sympathy for anyone else. You would have to be so narcissistic, self-centered, and inconsiderate. There are very people who can be this way. There are so many natural feelings we have to not be completely evil that just come with being humans. We do not come into this world careless and thoughtless about everyone around us. The only way people turn out that way is through mental illness or a traumatic upbringing or lifestyle that forced them to have that sort of mindset to survive or succeed.

Overall I do not think that it is natural or ideal for anyone to have the psychological egoist mindset or to believe that we should live believing that we have the obligations that the ethical egoist concept suggests. Both of these are negative when it comes to real life application, no matter how much sense they may or not make.

Sources:

Moore, G.E., 1903,Principia Ethica, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, sec. 59.

Rachels, James. 1971 Egoism and Moral Scepticism. 233-239

Shaver, Robert, Egoism,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta(ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/egoism/>.

View original post here:

Rachels Psychological and Ethical Egoism - Emory University

Author: Nathan NobisCategory: EthicsWord Count: 999

Listen here

Selfishness is often considered a vice and selfish actions are often judged to be wrong. But sometimes we ought to do whats best for ourselves: in a sense, we sometimes should be selfish.

The ethical theory known as ethical egoism states that we are always morally required to do whats in our own self-interest. The view isnt that we are selfishthis is psychological egoism[1]but that we ought to be.

This essay explores ethical egoism and the main arguments for and against it.

Selfish people often have nasty dispositions towards other people, but ethical egoism generally discourages that: such selfishness is rarely to our advantage, especially in the long run. And egoism does not suggest that we never help others: egoists might be quite generous.

Egoism does entail, however, that what makes acting like this right, when it is right, is that its for our own benefit: it makes us better off. So, if you must help someone else, this is only because doing so would be good for you; and if you should refrain from harming someone thats also only because doing so is for your benefit.

Some egoists argue that, since we each know our own wants and needs best, everyone should focus on themselves: people meddling in other peoples lives tend to go badly.

Also, some claim that egoism uniquely recognizes the value of individuals lives and goals. Other ethical theories can require altruistic sacrifices of your interests for the sake of other people or abstract standards, whereas egoists maintain that each person has their own life to live for themselves, not anyone or anything else.[2]

Finally, some egoists argue that their theory best explains what makes wrong actions wrong and right actions right. Kantians say its whether anyone is used as a mere means; consequentialists say its an actions consequences; egoists say its really how someones actions impact their self-interest.[3]

Lets respond to these arguments by reviewing some objections.

First, in response to the claim that egoism is desirable because everyone adopting it would be good for all, we should notice that this isnt an egoistic argument since the motivating concern is everyones interests, which arent important if egoism is true: only you should matter to you.

And are we really always meddling with people when we help themsay by trying to help feed people who are starving to death or are living in dire povertyas some egoists say we are?

One objection assumes that ethical theories should help resolve conflicts: e.g., for consequentialists, who should win a presidential election? Whoever will produce the best consequences as president. Egoists, however, say that each candidate should do whats in their best self-interest, which is winning the election. But, critics argue, they cant both win, so egoism requires the impossible, so it cant be correct.[4]

Egoists might respond that not everyone can do whats right: if you win, you do whats right; if you lose, youve done wrong.

They can also use this objection to refine egoism: you must try to do whats best for you, not necessarily achieve that. Actual success is often difficult, but everyone can try.

Another objection takes us to the heart of the matter. Imagine this:

Your credit card bill is due tonight, but you wont be able to pay the full amount until next month, so you will be charged interest and a late fee.

You just saw someone, however, accidentally leave their wallet on a park bench with a lot of cash hanging out of it. You saw where they went, but you could take the cash to pay the bill and nobody would ever know.

Also, you know of an elderly person who always carries a lot of cash on their evening walk. You know you could rob them, pay your bill, certainly never get caught and then buy dinner at a fancy restaurant.

If ethical egoism is true, not only can you permissibly take the wallet and rob someone, you must: not doing so would be wrong, since these crimes are in your self-interest. (If youd feel guilty doing this, egoists respond that you shouldnt since youve done nothing wrong on their view.)

Many believe that, since actions like these are clearly wrong, this shows that egoism is false and the argument at 2.3 fails: egoism does not best explain our moral obligations even if we sometimes must do whats best for ourselves.

An egoist might respond that we are just assuming their theory is false: they dont agree that we shouldnt steal the wallet and refrain from assault.[5]

But we arent assuming anything: we just have better reason to believe that assault for personal gain is wrong than that egoism is true. Recall that racists and sexists do not agree that their forms of discrimination are wrong either, but this doesnt justify racism or sexism. People sometimes hold false moral views; this might be true of egoists.

Finally, racists and sexists think that people of their group are entitled to special benefits and are even justified in harming people not of their group. Egoists think something similar, but about themselves: harms they allow for and inflict on other people just dont matter.

But is there anything about ones race or sex or oneself that justifies treating others badly? No, so egoism is a form of prejudice, in favor of your own group of one, you.[6] This objection agrees with the argument at 2.2, that everyone does have their own life, but corrects it with the fact that everyones life matters, not just the egoists.

Doing whats right is sometimes in our self-interest. If the above discussion is correct, though, that an action benefits us is never the sole reason it is right. And, more importantly, if an action is not in our own self-interest, we might be obligated to do it, nevertheless.[7]

There are other arguments about egoism. Reviewing them might be in our self-interest. Should we?

[1] Psychological egoism presents itself as an empirical, scientific, observational, or descriptive claim about our motives: everything we do is an attempt to make ourselves better off.

The problem though is that there is no good scientific evidence for this claim. We are sometimes selfish, or seek our own best interest, but what kind of observations could show that we are always selfish? Our many motives have never been adequately examined to conclude anything like that: furthermore, its often hard to conclusively determine what anyones motives are, especially since motives are often mixed.

Advocates of psychological egoism simply dont have any such evidence, and perhaps couldnt have such evidence, so the view is usually proposed as a kind of dogma or unsupported hypothesis, and so should not be accepted.

Its worthwhile, however, to note that if psychological egoism were true (and we always did what we believe to be in our own interest), and ethical egoism were true (and so we must do whats in our best self-interest, or try), then we would always do whats right and could do no wrong we would always do whats in our best self-interest. Since it seems clear that we dont always do whats right, or even try, at least one of these theories is false, if not both.

Also, if psychological egoism were true, then, since most other ethical theories require some altruism (that is, actions that benefit others, for their own sake), these other theories demand the impossible. And since some of us sometimes seem to be altruistic, psychological egoism seems to be false.

Furthermore, since ethical egoists advise making choices that benefit ourselves, that acknowledges that we might fail at doing that, and not even try, which suggests that even ethical egoists recognize that psychological egoism is false.

[2] For a presentation of this and related concerns, see Rand (1964).

[3] For an introduction to these theories, see Deontology: Kantian Ethics by Andrew Chapman and Consequentialism by Shane Gronholz

[4] For a presentation of this and related arguments, see Baier (1973).

[5] Egoists might consider this a question-begging response to their theory. To beg the question is to offer an argument that in some way assumes the conclusion of the argument as a premise: its a type of circular reasoning. So here the charge is that this response assumes that egoism is false in arguing that egoism is false. In the main text of this essay, I respond to this charge and explain why this argument against egoism is not question-begging.

[6] This argument was developed by James Rachels (1941-2003). For its most recent presentation, see Rachels and Rachels (2019). Beyond racism and sexism, another potential form of discrimination that can be compared and contrasted with egoism is speciesism: see Speciesism by Dan Lowe for discussion.

[7] Related, but more subtle ethical questions, beyond the egoism-inspired question of whether others interests must be given any moral consideration or moral weight, are whether, and to what extent, we can ever be justifiably partial to anyones interests: e.g., can I permissibly act in ways that favor the interests of my family and loved ones, over the interests of, say, strangers? For an introduction to these questions, see (Im)partiality by Shane Gronholz.

Baier, Kurt. Ethical Egoism and Interpersonal Compatibility. Philosophical Studies, vol. 24, no. 6, 1973, pp. 357368.

Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. New York: New American Library, 1964.

Rachels, James and Rachels, Stuart. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 9th Edition (1986, 1st edition). Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2019.

Shaver, Robert, Egoism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Moseley, Alexander, Egoism, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Deontology: Kantian Ethics by Andrew Chapman

Consequentialism by Shane Gronholz

(Im)partiality by Shane Gronholz

Why be Moral? Platos Ring of Gyges Thought Experimentby Spencer Case

Happiness by Kiki Berk

Meaning in Life: What Makes Our Lives Meaningful? by Matthew Pianalto

Ethics and Absolute Poverty: Peter Singer and Effective Altruism by Brandon Boesch

The African Ethic of Ubuntu by Thaddeus Metz

Speciesism by Dan Lowe

Evolution and Ethics by Michael Klenk

Social Contract Theory by David Antonini

John Rawls A Theory of Justice by Ben Davies

Download this essay in PDF.

Nathan Nobis is a Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA. He is the author of Animals & Ethics 101, co-author of Thinking Critically About Abortion, a co-author of Chimpanzee Rights and author or co-author of many other articles, chapters, and reviews in philosophy and ethics. http://www.NathanNobis.com

Like Loading...

Related

View original post here:

Ethical Egoism: The Morality of Selfishness - 1000-Word Philosophy: An ...

Utilitarianism

So, actions have consequences and according to consequentialism, those consequences determine the morality of that action. Now we just have to decide if that consequence was good or bad. In this field of consequentialism, there are two basic arguments about how to answer this question.

The first is utilitarianism. In this school of thought, actions are judged by how much they benefit the majority. This means that a moral consequence is one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people, or what philosophers call utility. So, a moral action is one that produces the most utility or is most beneficial.

Now, off the bat you may recognize that there are multiple ways to define this. Perhaps the greatest good could mean happiness or perhaps it means best chance at survival. The various possible ways to define 'greatest good' all should be taken into account with utilitarianism but in the end, that's what you're after: a moral action that benefits the most number of people.

Ok, let's look at an example. Say that you are walking down the street and you see an apartment building on fire. What's the right thing to do? What's moral? Well, since we're going with consequentialist ethics, we're going to judge you based on the results that come from your actions. And since this is utilitarianism, you need to find the action that will produce the greatest benefit.

So, option one: just keep walking. Consequence? People die, no one is saved, it's a tragedy. The consequence had a negative outcome for a majority of people, so the choice to ignore the fire was immoral. Option two: run into the burning building and try to rescue as many people as you can. Consequence? A few people are saved, so that was a moral action. Option three: call the fire department, then help out however you can. The fire department can save more people than you, so this action has the most positive consequence. Everyone lives, and you've made the most moral choice.

Now, obviously not every scenario is that simple. What if it's harder to predict how many people will be positively influenced? Or what if the action that produces the greatest good for the majority has a negative impact on you? Utilitarianism requires selflessness and foresight to figure out how your actions will affect the majority of the population, not just yourself.

In addition to advocating for the greater good, utilitarianism also opposes actions that cause harm. According to the harm principle, which was proposed by philosopher and utilitarian John Stuart Mill, you should be allowed to do what you want unless your actions cause harm to somebody else.

In an ideal world, the greatest good for the greatest number of people will also result in the least amount of harm to the least amount of people. But even when that happens, the morality of an action can still be questionable. For example, consider the following scenario, which is frequently used to highlight the potential weaknesses of the utilitarian approach to moral reasoning:

If five people will die without an organ transplant, why not harvest the organs of one healthy person in order to save the five patients?

In this scenario, the greatest good for the greatest number of people will result in the least amount of harm to the least number of people. However, it is unthinkable to take this action in the real world. Not only is it a violation of the harm principle, but it also violates a number of other moral principles as well.

So utilitarianism was one way to determine if the consequences of an action are moral or immoral. But it's not the only way. The opposite viewpoint is ethical egoism, in which morality is defined by the impact of an action on yourself. In this branch of consequentialism, you're not worried about the greater good, you're worried about your own self-interest. In this theory, it's less moral to risk your own life than to get killed saving someone else.

This may sound selfish but think about it. A lot of our legal system actually supports this; that's why you generally can't be arrested for choosing not to help out in an emergency. Also, egoists argue that self-interest actually creates a strong sense of responsibility to others. Here's the logic: if I don't help someone, then I get a bad reputation and no one else will help me. So it's actually in my best interest to consider other people's needs and to help them. In fact, you could argue that trying to help the most people is the best way to help myself since all of those people now think that I'm pretty swell.

Writer and philosopher Ayn Rand, who developed a conception ethical egoism and applied her philosophy to social issues, offered a critique of utilitarianism in her book Atlas Shrugged. Rand believed utilitarianism fails as a moral principle because it denies the individual. She argued that not only is self-interest good, but it should also be the guiding principle by which we live our lives. According to Rand, the prosocial tendencies of humans, particularly altruism, are 'diseases' imposed on us by society and cause us to betray our natural self-interest.

An ethical egoist like Ayn Rand strongly supports the idea of self-reliance versus reliance on government or charity. When presented with a statement like, 'we should make sure everyone is better off financially,' the ethical egoist would say that when each person looks out for their own financial self-interest, then everyone is self-reliant and better off, and therefore, we should all only look out for our own self-interest.

This argument seems logical, but when we consider that there are some people who may not be able to financially support themselves, such as children or individuals with illnesses or disabilities, we know that the end result is that some people will be better off financially and others will be worse off financially.

In philosophy, the question of how we define right and wrong is often asked. One way is through the results of our actions. Consequentialism judges the morality of actions based on the consequences they produce. A common expression of this idea is the end justifies the means, so whatever action is required to create a positive outcome is therefore moral. But how do we decide if the outcome was positive?

According to utilitarianism, an action is moral if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is all about the majority, the greater good. The opposite viewpoint is ethical egoism, in which the morality of an action is determined by the impact on yourself. The action that benefits you the most is the most moral.

Utilitarianism and ethical egoism may both present different ideas about how to judge morality, but at the end of the day, your actions still have consequences. Just like your parents taught you.

After viewing this lesson, you should be able to:

Excerpt from:

Consequentialist Theories: Ethical Egoism & Utilitarianism

The main difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism is that psychological egoism emphasizes the fact that people act primarily out of self-interest while ethical egoism emphasizes the fact that people should act for their self-interest.

At initial thought, egoism refers to pride, selfishness and having high self-worth. However, with regard to psychological egoism and ethical egoism, these definitions take on different facets.

1. What is Psychological Egoism Definition, Focus,Motivation2. What is Ethical Egoism Definition, Focus, Motivation3. What are the Similarities BetweenPsychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism Outline of Common Features4. What is the Difference BetweenPsychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism Comparison of Key Differences

Egoism, Psychological Egoism, Ethical Egoism, Psychology, Philosophy

Psychological egoism refers to the concept stating that a persons self-interest always motivates his/her actions. In other words, it explains that everybody is ultimately motivated solely by his/her self-interest. Hence, it explains the reason for most human behaviour.

Thus, psychological egoism does not explain the morality of these actions, i.e., good or bad, it only observes the reason behind those actions. It merely observes that actions of everyone are influenced by selfishness or self-interest.

Psychological egoism is identified as a descriptive theory; it is based on observations and following conclusions. Two pioneering philosophers who endorsed this theory are Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Figure 1:Friedrich Nietzsche

According to psychological egoism, self-interest/ selfishness is the motive behind every action, even on the altruistic actions of humans. Similarly, it does not claim how one should act but describes why one acts.

Ethical egoism refers to the concept that every human should be/ ought to be motivated by their self-interest. Hence, unlike psychological egoism, ethical egoism does not describe that peoples actions are motivated by self-interest, rather it claims that people should act primarily out of self-interest or should seek self-welfare. Thereby, it recommends how people should behave ethically, seeking only self-interest.

Ethical egoism proposes that only those actions having consequences benefitting the person should be considered as ethical. Hence, ethical egoism rejects altruism. Moreover, it is a normative or a prescriptive theory.

Unlike psychological egoism, ethical egoism does not observe the universal motive of human actions as self-interest; therefore, it only recommends self-interest to be the ultimate motive for human actions. Such actions are identified as ethical, worthy and good under ethical egoism.

Figure 2: Henry Sidgwick

Hence, an egoist always practices ethical egoism. Some philosophers who brought forward the theory of ethical egoism are Henry Sidgwick, and, Ayn Rand.

Psychological egoism refers to the concept that self-interest motivates all human actions while ethical egoism refers to the concept that all people should/ought to be motivated by self-interest for their actions. Thus, this is the maindifference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism.

Moreover, psychological egoism is a descriptive theory whereas ethical egoism is a normative or prescriptive theory.

In psychological egoism, everybody is ultimately motivated solely by his/her self-interest. On the other hand, ethical egoism prescribes selfishness or self-interest to be the ultimate motivation for individual actions. Hence, this is anotherdifference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism.

One other difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism is that the psychological egoism describes the reason for human behaviour and actions while ethical egoism recommends how human behaviour or actions should be.

Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche are two philosophers who brought forward this theory of psychological egoism whereas Henry Sidgwick and Ayn Rand are two philosophers who brought forward this theory of psychological egoism.

Both psychological and ethical egoism describes how self-interest influences human actions. The main difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism is that the psychological egoism emphasizes the fact that people act primarily out of self-interest while ethical egoism emphasizes the fact that people should act for their self-interest. Thus, psychological egoism is a descriptive theory whereas ethical egoism is a prescriptive theory.

1. Psychological Egoism, Philosophy.lander.edu, Available here.2. Ethical Egoism. Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Jan. 2019, Available here.

1. 150143 (Public Domain) via Pxhere2. Portrait of Friedrich Nietzsche By Unknown featured on the cover of What Nietzsche Really Said by Robert C. Solomon, Public Domain) via Commons Wikimedia3. 1368911 (Pixbay License) via Pixabay4. PSM V56 D0028 Henry Sidgwick By Unknown Popular Science Monthly Volume 56 (Public Domain) via Commons Wikimedia

See the rest here:

What is the Difference Between Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism ...

Character and Conscience underlie Ethical Decision Making

Ethical dilemmas in the workplace can be more effectively dealt with if managers follow a few simple steps:

Egoism: Egoism looks at each decision by considering the effects of a decision only as it relates to the individual decision-maker. Most ethicists dismiss this method because it fails to consider the consequences on the stakeholders. For example, if a CEO or CFO is dealing with financial statement reporting and wants the statements to look as good as possible regardless of the rules and effects on others, then egoism rules the day.

Enlightened Egoism: This method considers the consequences of alternatives on the stakeholders but ultimately a decision is made based on whats in the best interest of the decision maker. So, a manager would consider the effects on the stakeholders and may decide that since a particular decision is harmful to the stakeholders because manipulatation of the financial statements compromises the validity of those statements, it is in the best interests of the manager to conform the statements to accounting rules.

Utilitarianism: Here the decision-maker evaluates harms and benefits of alternative decisions using a calculus/weighting approach. Under act utilitarianism, the decision would be to select the act where the benefits to the stakeholders exceed the harms (i.e., net benefits are greater than any other act I might take). The problem here is a decision-maker might weigh the alternative to manipulate the statements as having greater value than conforming to the rules. An alternative is to apply rule-utilitarianism where regardless of utilitarian benefits certain rules should never be violated, such as always follow proper accounting rules regardless of the consequences on others.

Rights and Obligations: In this method the decision-maker uses ethical judgment to evaluate the rights of others (i.e., the investors and creditors). These stakeholders have a right to expect accurate and reliable financial statements. Correspondingly, I, as a decision-maker, have an obligation to respect those rights when I select an alternative course of action. Rights Theory follows a universality approach in that I would ask, before deciding, whether I would want others in my position to make the same decision for the same reason if they were faced with a similar dilemma. If so, my action has universal appeal and should be taken.

Values-based decision making can be a complimentary thought process because the ethical values to be emphasized in the workplace mirror the rights and obligations approach. Decision makers should act in accordance with certain virtues of behavior, or character traits, such as truthfulness, trustworthiness, respect, fairness, responsibility, objectivity, and integrity. If I am a principled person, then my actions reflect these virtues and those who rely on my decisions expect to be treated in accordance with these ethical values.

Ethical decision-making in the workplace is fraught with danger because stakeholders of an organization may have competing demands. Investors and creditors expect to receive truthful information while top management may believe their own personal wealth and image is tied into putting the best face on the financial statements. It takes courage and perseverance for decision-makers to avoid the obstacles that may be in play and follow their conscience. Let your conscience be your guide is as true today as years ago. Of course, we are talking about people who have the propensity to be ethical; otherwise, their conscience may not bother them if unethical actions are taken.

Finally, managers should avoid the proverbial ethical slippery slope where once a decision is made that violates ethical tenets the decision maker starts to descend the slippery slope and it is difficult to reverse course and reclaim the high road. Unethical decisions can lead to cover-up and more unethical decisions down the road. Remember, ethics is about what you do when no one is looking. In other words, you are what you do and ethical people are motivated to do the right thing, not make a decision based on selfishness egoism.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 28, 2014 Professor Mintz teaches at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo and also blogs at: http://www.ethicssage.com.

More:

How to Handle Ethical Issues in the Workplace

The Jewish New Year (5783) began almost two weeks ago; and most Jews are looking forward to the new Jewish year being better than the last few years. I myself believe that in the next two decades a major post covid-19 religious revival will occur as Prophet Amos predicted: Behold, days are coming, declares the Lord God, when I will send a famine on the land, not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, but rather for hearing the words of the Lord. (Amos 8:11)

But the next religious revival will happen only if the leaders of todays religions are open to the desire of young people for religions that are not homophobic; and advocate religious diversity by respecting other religions because they do not claim an exclusive we have the only truth or our religion is the only one approved by God theology.

According to a 2008 Pew survey, one in five Christians in America believe that non-Christian faiths cannot lead one to salvation. That number soared to 60 percent for white evangelical Protestants who attend church once a week.

This is especially important for Americas Islamic leaders because the Quran is a strong proponent of Religious Diversity: Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabianswhoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve. (Quran2:62)

A survey of over 35,000 Americans in 2008 found that most Americans agree with the statement: many religions not just their own can lead to eternal life. Among those affiliated with some religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life.

This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including 82% of Jews, 79% of Catholics, 57% of evangelical Protestants and 56% of Muslims. (From the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2008, Pew Research Center.)

Thus, in 21st century United States most Christians, Jews, and Muslims have rejected the only one truth religious mind set and believe in the Qurans pluralism teachings: For every one of you did We appoint a law and a way. If Allah had wanted, He could have made you one people, but (He didnt) that He might test you in what He gave you. Therefore compete with one another to hasten to do virtuous deeds; for all return to Allah (for judgement), so He will let you know [about] that in which you differed.[5:48]

Only those who reject God by disbelief or by unrepentant evil activities will be the losers when Judgement Day comes. Although most only one truth or only one God approved religious mind set theologians will learn that they might not be as smart as they thought they were.

It is very important to understand that religious pluralism is the will of God is different from religious, moral or cultural relativism. Relativism teaches that all values and standards are subjective, and therefore there is no higher spiritual authority available for setting ethical standards or making moral judgments. So, issues of justice, truth or human rights are, like beauty, just in the eye of the beholder. Religious pluralism as the will of God is the opposite of cultural psychological or philosophical relativism.

The fundamental idea supporting religious pluralism is that religious people need to embrace humility in all areas of religion. All religions have always taught a traditional anti self-centered personal egoism type of humility.

Religious pluralism also opposes a religious, philosophical, and self righteous intellectual egoism that promotes a tendency to turn our legitimate love for our own prophet and Divine revelation into universal truths that we fully understand and know how to apply.

Religious pluralism teaches that finite humans, even the most intelligent and pious of them, can not fully understand everything the way the infinite One does.

This is true, for every human being, even for Gods messengers themselves. When prophet Moses, who God spoke with face to face, as a person speaks with a friend (Exodus 33:11) asks to see God face to face, he is told, You cannot see My face, for no man can see My face and live. (33:20)

Similarly, in the Quran prophet Jesus admits to God, You know everything that is within myself, whereas I do not know what is within Yourself. (7:116)

And when Prophet Jesus was asked, in private, by his disciples, What will be the sign for your coming (back) and the end of the age? (Matthew 24:3) Jesus warns his disciples about upheavals and false Messiahs that will come. Then Jesus concluded by saying, But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the son: only the Father. (24:36)

A similar statement was made by Prophet Muhammad when he was asked, Tell me about the Hour. He said: The one questioned about it knows no better than the questioner. (Muslim book 1 Hadith 1&4)

God taught the general principle of epistemological humility through his Prophet who taught his followers I am no novelty among the messengers. I do not know what will be done to me, or to you. (Quran 46:9) In truth, the only universal truth should be the humility to admit: Only God knows.

Or as Allahs Apostle said, Dont give me superiority over Moses, for people will fall unconscious on the Day of Resurrection. I will be the first to regain consciousness, and behold! Moses will be there holding the side of Allahs Throne. I will not know whether Moses was among those people who became unconscious and then has regained consciousness before me, or was among those exempted by Allah from falling unconscious. (Volume 8, Book 76, #524)

As God declares through Prophet Zechariah: These are the things that you shall do:Speak the truth to one another;render in your gates judgmentsthat are true and make for peace;do not devise evil in your hearts against one another, andlove no false oath, for all these things I hate, declares theLord. (8:16-17)

Finally: Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous. (Quran 2:177)

Follow this link:

Will 2023 Be Better Or Worse Than 2022? OpEd - Eurasia Review

If you could boil down the essence of the beloved hobbit characters of J.R.R. Tolkiens The Lord of the Rings to determine their most endearing and admirable quality, what would it be? A resilience to evil, perhaps, or the courage to take on great deeds despite their lack of physical prowess? A kind and gentle demeanor? I submit that although those are fine choices, the most important core tenet of hobbithood is a pure and simple devotion to ones friends and family, a faithfulness that outweighs all considerations of danger or practicality. Its why the likes of Frodo, Merry, Pippin, and especially Samwise are so easy for the reader to admirethey represent the best aspects of human nature in Tolkiens mind, an earthy wholesomeness and empathy for each other that is never constrained by ego, vanity, or selfish pursuits. When the chips are down, the hobbits are always there for each other. Its why they make great ring bearers!

And that faithfulness is no doubt part of why the depiction of the Harfoot clan in Amazons The Rings of Power often seems so strange and off putting. Granted, these are not the comfortable hobbits weve previously seen growing fat, content, and sedate within the confines of the well-protected Shire. The lives of the Harfoots are considerably more perilous, and theyve grown up with a culture that emphasizes the hard choices that must often be made in the name of survival. But even then, the shows depiction of Harfoot life often seems needlessly, even comically heartless and cruel. On a show that has often done visual justice to its unprecedented, billion dollar budget five episodes in, its one of those nagging issues of characterization that make Rings of Power such an odd roller coaster of satisfaction, confusion, and disappointment.

Put simply: The Harfoots are uniquely awful to one another, whether thats on a personal level or an institutional one. The screenwriters, meanwhile, have made a feeble attempt to portray the heartlessness of the clan as a policy of survival, but the show hasnt done nearly enough to convey why a single adults sprained ankle is treated as an insurmountable obstacle that an entire society cant find a way to deal with. Instead, the Harfoots have come off like a den of Ayn Randian zealots, preaching ethical egoism as they try to sign the death warrant of an entire family (young children in tow), rather than band together as one expects of, you know protagonists. Its a bizarre choice; one that rings especially false in comparison with the hobbit characters we know so well.

The Harfoot troubles begin when Largo Brandyfoot, the father of inquisitive and empathic young daughter Nori, suffers a badly sprained or broken ankle while assisting in festival preparations. Immediately his family fears for the worst, that they will be left behind during the upcoming migration, a yearly quest to reach safer and more bounteous lands during the harvest season. This appears to be the ultimate existential threat of Harfoot existence, that your family will be left by the rest to be devoured by wolves or other monsters, remembered only via a dutiful (and brief) mention in each years tribute to the deadthe Harfoot equivalent of an Oscars In Memorium montage, except with more chuckling at deceased family members who were stung to death by bees.

Immediately, though, the fatalism and concern of the Brandyfoot family rings as strange to the viewer, because were given no reason for why a single, relatively minor injury is treated as such a massive burden on their society. Knowing what we know about hobbits, we fully expect the community to rally around their injured member! We expect to see them taking turns in caring for Largo, in building him a sling, in carrying him in each familys cart. Theyre already traveling with a rather ridiculous assemblage of goods for transitory migrantsyoure telling me that none of these hale and hearty adults are able to take on any additional burden, or travel a little lighter? Hell, the guy isnt even immobilehes just walking a little slower than normal.

Consider, after all, what being left behind really means here. Its implied that when one is left behind, they inevitably dont make it to the ancestral harvest home, which means for all intents and purposes that this a death sentence. One would expect the community to treat such a thing as an extreme last resort, or for a Harfoot to say we leave no one behind unless we absolutely have to. You expect to see these goodhearted hobbit precursors agonize over such a decision. And instead, we get the exact opposite, with village elders such as Malva seemingly pushing as hard as they can for the extermination of the Brandyfoot family, and poor Poppy (whose song I loved in a totally unabashed and unqualified way) by proxy. For gods sake, theyve got a little kid in tow who looks about 6 years old! I demand that you look at the face of Dilly Brandyfoot right now, and then tell me that the audience shouldnt judge the Harfoot elders for not caring whether she becomes a bleached little hobbit skeleton theyll note in their list of the abandoned.

Look at that face. LOOK AT IT.

It might be different in Largo Brandyfoot was portrayed as some kind of weathered, ancient elder of the community whose time had come. In that scenario, at least the screenwriters might believably be able to write the guy saying something like leave me behind for the good of the clan. But obviously, that isnt the caseLargo is just an otherwise healthy adult male in the prime of his life, someone who happens to be slowed down by a temporary injury. Given a little while to heal up, surely he would be a contributing member of their village for literal decades or a generation to come. Condemning him (and his entire family) to death for his minor injury is like a farmer finding out his plow horse has a cold, and reacting by deciding to shoot not just that one horse, but also its entire extended family. The show has just never provided any rationale for which such an extreme reaction is necessary.

And its not getting better, either. Despite the fact that the Brandyfoot family has seemingly been able to keep up during the migration thanks to the assistance of The Strangerand none of the other Harfootsthe village elders havent stepped back on their campaign to leave Nori, Largo and the others behind. In fact, Episode 5 of Rings of Power depicts the clan slogging their way through an unusually barren forest, which results in the elders deciding that the presence of The Stranger is no doubt at fault for any and all misfortune that may come their way. The lovely Malva approaches village leader Sadoc to offer a typically empathetic piece of advice: The group should preemptively assure the deaths of the Brandyfoots by forcibly taking the wheels off their wagons, stranding them in the inhospitable wilderness. Essentially, shes arguing that because she doesnt like the look of The Stranger, the clan should respond by upgrading the Brandyfoot familys death sentence from passive, implied death to active, spiteful death. And Sadocs response? He doesnt disagree with her. To which I can only say: Wow. These are our protagonists? These guys. It seems more pleasant and supportive to be a member of orc society, than Harfoot society at this point. Imagine trying to live your daily life next door to a neighbor who advocated for stealing all your stuff and leaving you to die.

As Paste TV editor Allison Keene observed: I guess this is why their community is so small, thoughthey love leaving people to die. The hollow promise of no one walking alone is increasingly comical.

At this point, it feels like were one or two episodes away from the village elders suggesting that the rest of the clan burn Nori at the stake to appease their gods, Melisandre-style, or eating her family like so much proto-Hobbit trail mix. They need to keep up their strength, after all. Its a long walk.

All jokes aside, its not difficult for the viewer to understand how the screenwriter would like for these events to be perceived. Were meant to understand that the migration of the Harfoots is fraught with dangers, and that a painfully utilitarian philosophy is how they respond to these conditionstheyre willing to do whatever it takes to safeguard the community as a whole, even if it means being very ready to sacrifice individual members or whole families along the way.

The thing is, you cant just assume the audience will come to those conclusions, and you especially cant do that when were basing most of our understanding of the Harfoots on the Tolkien hobbits we know and love so well. It would never even occur to the likes of Samwise Gamgee to leave a little hobbit child behind to die, so the idea cant help but be shocking and distasteful to the viewer. And thus, if Amazon is going to portray such a cruel offshoot of the hobbit world in Rings of Power, they need to do a far better job of making us understand why the Harfoots believe sacrificing five or six people is a worthwhile tradeoff to the alternative, which is helping a guy with an injured foot tough it out. Its either that, or fully lean into the dark side of these Harfoots by acknowledging their positively villainous tendencies.

Which is all to say: I sure hope Rings of Power can figure out sooner or later how were meant to perceive these little guys, so ready and eager to abandon one another at the first opportunity. Never did I think Id be so repulsed by a hobbitor a Harfoot.

Jim Vorel is a Paste staff writer and resident genre geek. You can follow him on Twitter for more film writing.

Read more:

We Need to Talk about the Heartless Harfoots of Rings of Power - Paste Magazine