Peer Response – Ethical Egoism

Peer Response – Ethical Egoism

Response to Student 1

Hello,

This is a great post; it satisfactorily defines ethical egoism as the pursuit of self-interest. Your post also highlights key differences between psychological and ethical egoism by classifying psychological egoism as a descriptive theory while ethical egoism as a normative theory. I agree with your assertion that pursuing self-interests will likely attract conflict (Rosenstand, 2018). That is because when people focus too much on their interests, other people’s interests do not matter to them, triggering a potential conflict. I also like how you have addressed the subject of justice. As you rightly put it, most people are likely to embrace the interlink between altruism and ethical egoism given a chance. After fulfilling some self-interests, people seek to support others to realize a sense of purpose or just to acquire public recognition (Rosenstand, 2018). You have also accurately highlighted how Kant’s viewpoint guides decision-making. Most people make decisions based on self-interests and not moral standards. Great post!

References

Rosenstand, N. (2018). The moral of the story: An introduction to ethics (8th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.

Response to Student 2

Hello,

This is a good post: you have satisfactorily defined ethical egoism as the inherent desire to fulfill self-interests. You have elaboratively offered an insight into Ayn Randy’s perspective of ethical egoism since he condemns communist cannibalism, where dictatorial states take away private property to redistribute wealth. I also agree with your experience of how the lack of ethical egoism can impact one’s finances. Generosity can lead one to a financial pit; for some, it can be too late to recover. Someone who lacks ethical egoism is willing to give their money without caring about their long-term financial safety (Rachels, 2012). Notably, your post indicates that it is possible to practice ethical egoism and still practice justice. Although most people pursue ethical egoism to preserve personal interests, emotional instincts may drive them to practice kindness and just acts. You have also shown the importance of practicing utilitarianism against the backdrop of Kant’s viewpoint, which states that people’s moral standing is based on self-interest. Great post!

References

Rachels, J. (2012). Ethical egoism. Ethical theory: An anthology, 14, 193.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Instructions: post a brief critical commentary on at least two other students’ brief overview responses. It is important to understand that a critical comment may be positive or negative, but it goes beyond merely stating your agreement/disagreement, interest/indifference, shared understanding, or confusion. Your comment may start out that way, but to be a critical comment, it must also provide a reason or reasons for your reaction or specific comment. Each critical comment should be at least 100-150 words in length.

Student #1
1.) Ethical egoism is a normative theory that suggests that individuals should act in their self-interest and that doing so is morally right. The primary difference between ethical and psychological egoism is that ethical egoism is a normative theory while psychological egoism is a descriptive theory that suggests that all human actions are ultimately motivated by self-interest. The textbook states “This theory is called ethical egoism simply because it is an ethical theory, a normative theory about how we ought to behave (in contrast to psychological egoism, which claims to know how we actually behave).” Ayn Rand, a Russian-born American philosopher, and writer justified her claim that selfishness is a virtue by stating that individuals have a moral right to pursue their self-interest and that this pursuit is essential to human flourishing. One of the issues I see with ethical egoism is that it can lead to conflicts of interest when individuals pursue their self-interest at the expense of others. This can lead to harm and injustice, especially in situations where resources are limited. An argument in favor of the “golden rule” could be that it recognizes the importance of treating others well and acknowledges that doing so can be beneficial to ourselves. An argument against it could be that it may not be sufficient in cases where treating other conflicts with our immediate self-interest.
2.) If I had the Ring of Gyges in Book II of Plato’s Republic I would act in between ethical egoism and altruism. At times I would act in my own self-interest (ethical egoism) until I had the great means (mostly financial means) to act as an ethical altruist and serve the interests of others even if it means sacrificing my self-interest. I would do it in such a way that I could benefit many people at one time rather than on a case-by-case basis where an absolute ethical altruist would. The view that Plato introduces through Glaucon I believe unfortunately applies to some people but not all. I think some people would act unjustly given there was no consequence. However, I believe most people would fall under Plato’s view that justice is necessary for the well-being of individuals and society as a whole and that it is only through the pursuit of justice that individuals can achieve true happiness and fulfillment.
3.) The ethical decision I made that I chose to assess with Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus and Mill’s revised Utilitarian thesis was the decision to join the Navy. Using Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus and assessing intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent I chose to join as the pleasure outweighed the pain when utilizing the aspects assessed in the calculus. Using Mills revised utilitarian thesis to assess my decision to join the Navy, the sense of purpose and personal growth ultimately gave me a higher pleasure rating than the possible physical and emotional hardships I would possibly encounter while in the service. Additionally, I assessed joining the Navy as a voluntary and informed decision that respected my individual rights and freedoms. Lastly, to me joining the Navy promoted the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people by promoting national defense, peace, and stability. My thinking coincides with the Hedonistic Calculus as, at the time, I assessed most if not all of the attributes mentioned. The primary difference between Mill’s and Bentham’s version of utilitarianism is that Bentham believed that happiness could be quantified whereas Mill argued that there were more qualitative differences in pleasures.
4.) The key difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives is that hypothetical imperatives are dependent on our particular desires or goals whereas categorical imperatives are unconditional and apply to all rational beings. The formulation, “act only according to that [subjective or personal] maxim whereby you can, at one and the same time, will that it should become a universal law” described by Kant means that when we consider whether an action is morally allowable, we should ask ourselves whether we could consistently that everyone should act in the same way in a similar circumstance. If the answer is yes, then the action is morally allowable or permissible, but if the answer is no, then the action is morally impermissible. Kant’s moral theory is deontological, meaning that it is focused on duty and inherent moral value actions themselves, rather than their consequences. My position on Kant’s view is that it is inflexible and fails to account for the complexity of moral decision-making in the real world. There is no room to account for the moral obligations we have to others. On the other hand, I do appreciate how it provides a consistent framework for making moral judgments.

Student #2

Ethical ego is an ethical theory that says a person should look out for and do what is best for their own self-interest. Basically, it is the exact opposite of what the former president of the United States would project to the public. Ayn Rand defended this position or this theory by comparing the more Christ-like outlook to those who are under a dictatorship. Giving all to your fellow man, living for your fellow man, die for your fellow man is the more common outlook among human beings. In countries like Russia or North Korea, dictator states, when you have a successful company the leaders of those places will come a take ownership of your company and declare that it is better for the country if you are getting all your hard-earned money. They have their own churches that also funny the money they receive right to the government. Ayn Rand calls this way of thinking or living cannibalism. She says you make man replaceable and worthless when you go about life in that manner. Our parents try to teach us how to share at a young age. I believe that’s when the idea of being overly giving in your life starts. Because you don’t want your friends to play with your toys because they might break them. But mom says to be nice and let them play with them. From there you might start going to church with the family where that way of thinking is even more deeply ingrained. At 45 years of age, I just got a little selfish. At 38 years of age, I looked around and did not see what I thought I had earned, and I corrected that. Being ethically selfish is a must in my opinion.

With the Ring of Gyges and having the ability to be invisible it would be easy to wreak havoc in the world or just use it for your own personal wealth in some dishonest way. But honestly at my age now and especially being in this class I would use the ring to answer most if not all of these philosophical questions about life and individuals. I would be gathering data to support in one way or another who we are as humans. I would follow the married poor man around and see if he is faithful to his family or if he had the opportunity would walk a different path to another woman. I would also follow the rich senator around to hear his language when the cameras are off and to see if his marriage is just a business arrangement or if is he that god-fearing family man he says he is on camera. I would also follow abused kids home and try to eliminate the problems they have at home. To this very day, I have always been a people watcher so if I had that ring it would just make me more of who I am. I have passed the time in life walking on the dark side.

Bentham’s and Mills’s versions of utilitarianism are different in that Mills looked at both the quantity and quality of pleasure while Bentham only saw the quality of pleasure. In my understanding of the term, utilitarianism means there can be no room for moral absolutes, and for me in my life that won’t work. I believe that comfort and respect should be universal. I believe that when treating anyone in a certain way you should expect this same type of treatment back. I also don’t believe that most things you do in life are to be for your own pleasure. Being comfortable leads to complacency and can kill the growth that all humans are required to do to survive on planet Earth with other human beings. Also, if you ever want a relationship with a lady beside your mom you have a lot of growing to do. Leaving the Navy was tough because, on the one hand, I was traveling the world and fighting for our country. But on the other hand, I missed life at home, could not keep a relationship, and was just tired of following orders day in and day out. I am a headstrong man, so I had to exit.

Kant’s theory on moral judgment is moral commands that depend on a person’s motivations or their desires. Those would be called hypothetical imperatives. Categorical imperatives are considered to be moral absolute laws. One law says, “Do the right thing.” And the other law says, “Do what’s right.” I personally take the “do what is right” to signify a universal train of thought. The “do the right thing” quote I take is to be objective and treat each situation differently from the last. Mr. Kant’s position on consequentialist ethics and ethical relativism is that they are both flawed. Kant believes that there are moral rules that should be followed no matter what happens as an effect to the decision. In today’s world, I live my life using some utilitarianism theory because I believe in thinking about outcomes and who will be affected. I think we all as humans should in some parts of our lives look outside ourselves and see how we are affecting others and who we are affecting. Some people call that being self-aware, but I would just call that being a good evolved human being. We need more of that in today’s world.