Egoism Vs Utilitarianism

Libertarians reject Utilitarianism’s concerns for the total social well-being. While utilitarians are willing to restrict the liberty of some for the greater good, libertarians believe that justice consists solely of respect for individual property. If an individual isn’t doing something that interferes with anyone else’s liberty, then no person, group, or government should disturb he or she from living life as desired (not even if doing so would maximize social happiness). They completely disregard concern for an overall social well-being. Using a libertarian’s perspective, a state that taxes its better-off citizens to support the less fortunate ones violates their rights because they have not willingly chosen to do so. In that same context, a theory that forces capitalists to invest in people and natural capital is immoral. Nevertheless, libertarians encourage that people help those in need, as it is a good thing.

Which Teleological ethical theory, Utilitarianism or Egoism, is the most appropriate to use in everyday life? Why?

An example of this would be if a person is driving down the road and sees someone stranded they decided to stop and help with no expectations of being repaid for their kindness. A form of Teleological system is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is where the good outcome is determined by the consequences of the action. Utilitarianism believes that you should always act to produce the greatest possible outcome of good and evil to everyone.

Ethical egoism is the normative theory that the promotion of one's own good is in accordance with morality. In the strong version, it is held that it is always moral to promote one's own good, and it is never moral not to promote it. In the weak version, it is said that although it is always moral to promote one's own good, it is not necessarily never moral to not. That is, there may be conditions in which the avoidance of personal interest may be a moral action.

The current political atmosphere has brought about a renewal in the interest of the works of Ayn Rand. The Russian-American novelist has once again been thrust into the limelight for a new generation of readers and political thinkers. Her ideas have been lauded in the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, and like many things these days, has had her ideas bent to meet certain political agendas. Much like Lenin used the ideas of Marx and Engels, the political right has used Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead to push for their version of what America should be.

Elizabeth, you did a good job at avoiding judging the scenario on your own personal morals and restricting your discussion to utilizing the ethical systems proposed. I believe when you stated, “We should do no harm, but do not have an obligation to help anyone, if it does not benefit ourselves, first and foremost”, it describes enlightened egoism, “a slight revision of this basic principle, adding that each person’s objective is long-term welfare” (Pollock, pp. 42, 2017). Your source clarifies the distinction made by Ann Rand by saying she “does advocate showing all people a “generalized respect and good will” which amounts to nonintervention; we should avoid arbitrarily doing harm to others, but our duties to aid them are also minimal” (Ethical

From the moment you are born, you are being influenced. Influenced on what to wear, how to do your hair, how to speak, whom to associate with, etc. All of these criteria make up who you are. These influences determine how you think and what you believe. With all these influences in our daily lives we inevitably do actions throughout the day, and our actions have consequences. Some consequences are good and some are bad, but based on our actions are there ulterior motives involved? Do we do things to solely benefit ourselves or do we sometimes do things to help out others and the greater good of mankind? These questions bring to the surface the topics of egoism, psychological and ethical, and altruism.

Introduced in 1874 by Henry Sidgwick in his book The Moral of Ethics, Ethical Egoism is an ethical theory that states that one ought to do what is in their best long term interest. This theory states that a morally correct being must in all cases do the thing that will give them the best result for their long term being. [1]

The ethical debate between Egoism and Altruism was extremely interesting to read about. I truly had an “aha” moment because this debate is a topic that is rarely tackled or approached from the perspective that being selfish is not a bad thing. At first, I thought this argument against altruism was insane, however, once I tried to think of examples that prove its insanity I thought of nothing. This is when I came to the conclusion that yes, whether its selfishness or selflessness, both have different meanings to different people. Laurena Becker, in her article “Encyclopedia of Ethics,” mentioned that one of the definitions for selflessness is “a regard for the well-being of others for its own sake” (35). I believe this is the definition that most people refer to. For example, when we think about a sister staying up all night to take care of her younger sibling whose sick, we tend to say “aww, she’s so sweet and selfless”. However, can we even say that a sibling is selfless for taking care of her own sibling? A part of me views that as being her job as an older sister while another part of me also views this as being a kind gesture; and in actuality it may be a little bit of both. This aspect interferes with Rand’s statement, in the book “Objectively

There is a certain innate desire to help others, just as others will feel that same fulfillment for returning that aid. At the same time, however, there is also an inherent yearning to seek out one’s own best interest. This brings about a discussion regarding the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. To understand the similarities and differences, one must first understand the two concepts including their natures, as well as their doctrines of motivation.

Two examples or branches of consequentialism are egoism and utilitarianism. The definition of utilitarianism is simply, doing the most good for the most people. The definition of egoism is the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; selfishness. Egoism is simply about you and you’re self-interest compared to utilitarianism is looking at others interests. There are pros and cons to each branch; however I personally think egoism is the better model. Both represent or contain an aspect of ethics but, egoism I believe is reflected or more related to the average person in everyday life.

Utilitarianism is the ethical belief that the happiness of the greatest number of people is the greatest good. Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers that were leading advocates for the utilitarianism that we study today. In order to understand the basis of utilitarianism, one must know what happiness is. John Stuart Mill defines happiness as the intended pleasure and absence of pain while unhappiness is pain and the privation of pleasure. Utilitarians feel the moral obligation to maximize pleasure for not only themselves, but for as many people as possible. All actions can be determined as right or wrong based on if they produce the maximum amount of happiness. The utilitarian belief that all actions can be determined as right or wrong based only on their repercussions connects utilitarianism to consequentialism. Consequentialism is the belief that an action can be determined morally right or wrong based on its consequences. Just like any other belief system, utilitarianism faces immense amount of praise and criticism.

Descriptive egoism holds that for each individual, there is only one ultimate aim survival and the betterment of the sole individual based on their own hierarchical principles.

The Consequentialist theory of Ethical Egoism sets out to prove that the morally right action is one that aims to maximise one’s own self-interest. The moral theory runs on the premise that the principle of self-interest accounts for all one’s moral obligations, therefore one ought to act in their own self-interest. This essay will provide three arguments for Ethical Egoism, and argue that they do not succeed in proving Ethical Egoism is sufficiently coherent and consistent when applied as a moral theory everyone should follow in the real world.

The utilitarian approach focuses on achieving the maximum benefit with the least about of burdens, even if you have to use people as a means to an end. The decision to turn to the U.S. government to bailout GM, declare bankruptcy, and for Rick Wagoner to resign followed the utilitarian approach to making ethical decisions. Wagoner, economic and financial analysts, and banks knew that the GM would not last for much longer as various financial setbacks hindered the company from being able to pay off its debts. While the burdens of the bailout could have potentially costed the company, "37,000 blue-collar jobs and 10,000 white-collar jobs, close to 14 plants over three years, eliminating four of its eight car brands, cut manager salaries 10 percent and all other salaries by 3 to 7 percent, and shift the costs of retiree health insurance to an independent trust," there was a greater risk of 1.1 million people becoming unemployed (Velasquez 188). Once the company declared bankruptcy the U.S. and Canadian governments were able to save the companies in the end. The GM bailout under the principles of utilitarianism was ethical.