Theory Of Ethical Egoism example essay topic

The ability to think critically and reasonably are key components in the development of ethical codes. At the core of every theory is a place of "minimal conception". [R. pg. 1] "Minimal conception", as defined by Rachels, is the starting point of every moral theory. The purpose of a moral theory is to set forth a systematically developed posture which attempts to identify the characteristics of morality and elaborately define them. In my essay I will explicate one theory, Ethical Egoism. By properly laying this explanative foundation, I would effectively be able to compare and contrast it to another popular moral theory, Utilitarianism. Following that analysis I would then discuss the expediency and reasonability of the theories and if and how they should be mainstreamed into our moral lives.

The theory of Ethical Egoism is circumscribed around the pursuit of self-endorsement. An Ethical Egoist is said to be one who is wholly driven by one's own desires, as he / she ought to be. This normative theory endorses that all individuals should be self-interested and their actions should reflect upon that. Self-promotional acts are viewed as a good trait and therefore contribute to the fabric of morality, hence making it an imperative ingredient in this theory. These premises are justified by the ideology that "we have no duty except to do what is best for ourselves". [Rachels pg. 84] In addition to acting according to ones own interest, an Ethical Egoist must have a heightened sense of awareness of their actions.

This is necessary because the real advantage of their actions come in the long run. An Ethical Egoist is a calculating individual who will sacrifice immediate benefits in order to achieve a higher and more gratifying end. The idea that doing what's best for society is doing what is best for ourselves only, is the antithesis of what many of us were brought up the believe as a practical and acceptable moral exercise. The concept of altruism is rejected.

Ayan Rand, a proponent for this type of moral standard rationalizes it as advantageous to everyone. By lending assistance you are enabling the recipient to be dependant upon that aid, consequently interfering with their ability to develop the necessary mechanism to become self-reliant. Self-reliance and self-promotion are traits that are interrelated in Ethical Egoism. In order to have the latter you must have the former, and vice versa in order to demonstrate this theory.

Acts of "charity", as Rachels puts it, is nothing but an undermining intrusion of that person's territory; a territory that should be inhabited by that individual only. This form of trespassing allows for butchery of the recipient's endeavors. Under the assertion that we know our wants and needs better than anyone else, we are then the only ones who qualify to conquer these essentials means. The altruistic person has no in-depth insight to these things, so therefore they are ineligible to render assistance. Ayan Rand also views acts of benevolence as suicide. By helping others you are abandoning your own opportunity for self-accomplishment, which compromises your purposes of being.

You allow yourself to become victimized by "parasites" who "treat you like a sacrificial animal" and deplete you for their own gains. [Rand pg. 86] In order to avoid this type of persecution you must not participate in the exchange of favors. The pursuits of ones own life rewards is the only way to guarantee refuge from these practices. Next, I am going to compare the theory of Ethical Egoism to another familiar moral theory, the Utilitarianism theory. I am first going to present the similarities, followed by the divergent principles. The Utilitarianism theory advocates a type of critical consciousness that is focused upon making productive decisions for the aggregate.

This theory states that moral good is contingent upon good consequences for everyone. Additionally, "we ought to choose the course of action that leads to the best overall consequences, considering all options and people concerned". [Grippe, class notes] Jeremy Bent am, an English philosopher first introduced this theory as a proposal for change for the body of England. Later, reformist John Stewart Mill modified the theory into a more comprehensive and practical one. From the periphery the arrangement of Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism give the impression of polar opposite conjectures. However, if you channel below the surfaces of these two ethical poses you will begin to idetentify some commonalities.

Ethical Egoism stand along side Utilitarianism in that they both assert what we ought to do and what the moral good consists in. Both goals are set as long term. As referenced earlier, Ethical Egoists will sacrifice the battle to win the war. The ultimate outcome is the greatest determinant of action. Utilitarian law attempts to bring about the greatest amount of good, which is equal to pleasure. Ethical Egoist too strives for that same fulfillment: good = pleasure.

More specifically, in Rule Utilitarianism behavior is evaluated by rules that if universally followed would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. Congruently, Ethical Egoism claims that everyone must "adopt the policy of pursuing ones own interest exclusively", which in this case is the rule; they too are concomitantly contributing to an act that leads to the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. {Rachels pg. 86] Because both theories strive towards the "greatest" good, the usage of this superlative implies that there is a scale that comparatively measures the contributive aspects of the societies involved in this social contract. This understanding of these theories introduces another commonality. Failure to play by the rules of either theory results in some sort of threat to the individuals involved. As distinguished in Ethical Egoism, failing to comply with the rules results in what is seen as a type of suicide.

Equally, failing to comply with the rules of Utilitarianism, especially Rule Utilitarianism, results in the sacrificing of ones rights. Therefore, by deviation from the laws of these theories you forfeit your rights which result in undesirable circumstances. In concluding the similarities between these theories, I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that these two theories are based on hedonistic values. If given the choice of A: pleasure or B: pain, both theories ultimately aim towards A: pleasure; pleasure being an outcome that elicits a more desirable result which in turn equates hedonism. The divergence between these two theories is easier to identify. The most recognizable differentiation is found in demographic make-up.

In Utilitarianism the decisions are being determined by group consequences as opposed to the consequences of an individual. All decisions are derived from the foreshadowing of the best possible outcome for a group of people. Everyone does participate in determining what is best; however there is no hierarchy that slants the decision in a particular person's favor. Ethical Egoism's contrasting views reason that outsiders can not really determine what is best for you. Only you are qualified to be the arbitrator of what best for you. You are # 1 as opposed to a group's best interest being #1.

Utilitarianism seeks to extend benefits to others and is not just limited to self-fulfilling remuneration. That is a form if altruism. Altruism is considered a destructive element according to the moral code of Ethical Egoism. When making a utilitarian decision, one must put aside ones own desires and compromise in order to achieve a greater end. The differences don't end there. For the Utilitarian the zenith is self actualization.

For the Ethical Egoist, it is self-gratification. Actions are determined based on which result will most satisfy, first and foremost one's own need. Furthermore, a Utilitarian will, if deemed absolutely necessary, forgo loosing the life of another if was for the greater good of the group. On the other hand, the Egoist will go to any length necessary to make sure their life is preserved. Clearly you see the individualist values between these two theories. In my analysis of these two theories I not only found the way in which they conflict and converge, but I also applied critical thinking skills to my own understanding of morality.

Morality is a prescribed movement that requires reflection and projection. Additionally, "Morality requires that we balance our own interests against the interests of others". [Rachels pg. 83] In order to achieve morality one must engage in the expanding and growing circle of understanding in order to destroy and / or construct a new projection of its understanding. First I will address Ethical Egoism. Within that theory I found many things disturbing and false about the theory.

Because it is impossible to co-exist without the aid of another, whether that aid is desired or not, I find it hard to apply a viable sense of reasoning behind this theory. If we walked around in a cold world void of altruism we will find ourselves in a greater struggle for achievement. In my own life I found myself better able to continue my strive towards excellence because of benevolence showed towards me. I found it equally as easy to success by the benevolence I showed towards other as well. The only times I felt as though my pursuit of happiness was thrown off track was when I compromised my own self-interest by putting myself in a position that can ultimately spoil what ever opportunities I had to attain my goals. From that perspective I do understand the sanctity that one must feel towards themselves and the price in giving.

However, when you recognize that there must be a balance you can more easily afford to give to others with out the consequence of a detrimental end. Another err I discovered was echoed by Rachels. "Ethical Egoism does not help to resolve conflicts of interests; it only exacerbates them". (Rachels pg. 91] What if, on you way to attain whatever it is that fits your desired end you meet "Jack" who too needs that one thing you need in order to help complete his desire what do you do next.

Well, Ethical Egoism does not answer those questions. Utilitarianism reasoning appeals to me the most. This theory recognized the fact that we don't live independent of each other and therefore it is more practical the Ethical Egoism. Each situation is judged differently, leaving room for a more custom designed resolution. Weighing the consequences is a wise approach to problem solving. However, because we are not infallible, there is a risk if making the wrong decision.

Still, don't we runt hat risk now? This theory never explained a successful method of judging what the outcomes would be. I don't know whether it is arbitrary or systematically determined. It is also difficult to weigh the cost and benefits on a comparative scale. Occasions may arise where the time to do such calculating is not available, so in a case such as that what do you do next?

What do you do if the aggregate decides that it is in their greater good to take the life of another? How does a Utilitarian explain that type of violation of that person's inalienable right to life? Because of the absence of answers for these crucial questions, I reject the theory of Utilitarianism. How does one develop moral codes?

I think a society that shares the same value of life and create a system that makes it possible to maintain a healthy and prosperous life for each individual is a good point of "minimal conception". It is import to recognize ones own short coming and how they affect society as a whole. Once those short coming are recognized, whether it be preconception of a person that is not like yourself or people who you are familiar with, and realized that that observation can and very well my be a misconception, then you are on the right track to becoming a more ideal society. However to this, humility is required and mutual trust is required. I say humility because to humble oneself is an example of how we can view ourselves as equal to one another. Trust is essential because we to be able to rely on the fact that we are all gong to do what is best of one another.

Unfortunately, history has taught me that not everyone is willing to make those sacrifices; hence, leaving philosophers and other members of societies constantly searching for the answers to our moral dilemma.