Monday, February 11, 2013
Making Connections
After looking at the definitions and positions of the different types of ethical positions, I decided to try to make some connections. Before moving on to support or critique of ethical egoism, I tried to figure out where it could possibly fit into what we've looked at thus far. I see similarities between ethical egoism and deontology. As we learned, deontology requires one to judge morality based on the intrinsic quality of the act itself NOT the consequences. In other words one must perform an action come whatever may. I see the same type of mentality for ethical egoism. One acts in their own interests (or those more seriously than the interests of others) and result is good for the public. The action is not based in the idea that it will necessarily bring good to others, but the moral one will. I also see a slight similarity between Kant's categorical imperative. Once again we learned that the categorical imperative states that the moral status of an act is that it would be willed as a maxim of universal law of nature. The way I interpreted ethical egoism is that all people act in their own interests and would expect universally that all others would do the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would argue that ethical egoism is much more in line with utilitarianism simply for the same reason that Pojman outlines in his essay, "Egoism and Altruism: A Critique of Ayn Rand." As Pojman says, "ethical egoism is utilitarianism reduced to the pinpoint of the single individual ego. Instead of advocating the greatest happiness for the greatest number, as utilitarianism does, it advocates the greatest happiness for myself, whoever I may be." Ethical egoism forces one to be concerned with the self and to do only what is good for the self, regardless of how it may effect others. Similarly, utilitarianism forces one to disregard one's beliefs---to "dirty one's hands"---for the sake of the consequence. Deontology, on the other hand, does not force one to do anything against one's conscience; it does not force one to choose the self over the other or to through away one's values in order to arrive at a certain consequence. Deontology seems to be much more in line with virtue ethics, for it is the cultivation of the virtues that allows for one to stand on principle in the first place for without virtues, our principles would cease to have meaning because there would be nothing for them to be based upon.
ReplyDeleteIf all people are acting in their own interests and are expecting all other individuals to do the same, then I feel as though that can serve to be a true basis for morality. There's a sense of self-awareness that comes with egoism (DUH). But if people are truly acting in selfish ways and expect others to do the same, there are two possibilities: complete disregard and disrespect or mutual understanding and respect. I believe that conflicts arise in any area when there are miscommunications about the expectations of individuals. When everyone understands their place and role in a situation, there aren't any problems. However, when certain individuals become confused or misguided and have expectations from one individual and that individual does not share the same beliefs or does not feel as though they have any obligations, that is when problems arise.
ReplyDeleteWhat differentiates between the two possible outcomes is the element of respect. If every individual in an egoist society is an egoist and respects that, then I do not foresee and problems that could arise.