The Differences Between Ethical and Philosophical Egoism

The Differences Between Ethical and Philosophical Egoism

The essay offers an insightful reflection on the differences between ethical and philosophical egoism. Whereas ethical egoism explains that we should only undertake actions if and only if they fulfill our needs, philosophical egoism explains why people behave the way they do. Both theories aver that people’s actions are motivated by self-interest. The essay satisfactorily addresses the issue of self-interest by illustrating that they can apply to personal or professional practices. Having worked in a wellness group, Ayn Randy realized why it is essential to look after oneself, having noted the repercussions of not doing so while participating in a wellness club.

There is also an excellent attempt to examine the weaknesses associated with ethical egoism. A predominant negative side of ethical egoism is the promotion of selfishness (Rosenstand, 2018). To that end, the example of the US, which is a highly individualistic and capitalist society, offers a glimpse into the downsides of ethical egoism. Although the US has a thriving economy, the capitalist nature of the economy puts the most vulnerable at a disadvantage since they cannot access basic life needs. It is not uncommon to find homeless people on the streets of New York, yet it is one of the wealthiest US states. The situation is different in collectivist countries like Japan, where individual needs matter. However, I’m afraid I have to disagree with the assertion that ethical egoism may paralyze society. I disagree that those who are at the top of the social ladder will fall if the farmer decides not to produce. The farmer’s decision to produce is also guided by selfish interest, which is to make money by selling.

Another notable point presented by the essay regards the applicability of ethical egoism in complex decisions. While ethical egoism may be applied when making simple decisions that affect individuals, it becomes hard to implement when the decision affects multiple individuals with competing interests (Rosenstand, 2018). For instance, a team of employees working on a project has diverse interests. If decisions in such a setting are based on ethical egoism, there is a likelihood of fallout by disgruntled members.

References

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

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Instructions: Post a single longer critical commentary, which we’ll call a “critique,” in response to a peer author’s in-depth critical essay. In essence, a critique is an evaluation; its special features are analysis and evidence to support the evaluation. Specifically, the critique you are being asked to write for this final weekly peer comment is a critique of another author’s argument—this will be the argument driving the peer author’s critical essay. What you will be focusing on in your peer critique is the reasoning behind the peer author’s position, not necessarily their skill in communicating it; that is to say, you will not be “grading” your peers’ work—you will be driving down below the surface of language (to the extent possible in this case) to analyze (take apart) the assumptions, claims, and conclusions of the peer critical essay, then evaluate (synthesize) the overall position taken in that essay.

It is extremely important to remember that you are evaluating the position and the reasoning supporting it, not the person. It is also important to note that a critique or critical commentary may be positive, negative, or a mixture of the two. We tend to use the word, “criticize,” or the expression, “being critical” with a mostly negative connotation, as in finding fault with something or “putting something (or someone) down.” That is not the intention here, although part of what you’re doing in writing a critique may indeed be finding fault. But the faults you are pointing out will have nothing to do with the author himself or herself. You will be looking for errors in reasoning and argumentation, in reporting relevant facts or information, in overlooking or misconstruing important points relevant to the question posed, and so on.

While precision and clarity in thought and written expression and overall comprehensibility of the written response are crucial for communicating the author’s position and supporting argumentation, your focus should be primarily directed to the position on the issue in question and the reasons advanced for why that is the correct or best position. You need not cite any sources in your critiques, but you are free to do so.

Responding to this peer in 200-400 words:
Ethical and psychological egoism are similar but have key differences. Both are normative philosophies that try to explain why humans make decisions in our lives, known as “egoism”. This can mean anything from life-altering decisions, such as career path, to what to eat.

Ethical egoism explains that we “ought” to perform actions if, and only if, it is in our best self-interest. However, psychological egoism explains how we “do” behave, as in the actions we actually make. Both are the same in the aspect as they are focused on the individual’s own best interests. Ayn Rand, a Russian-American immigrant, defends this and talks about how it is a good thing for people to focus on their own interests. She said that people “have a right, even a duty, to look after themselves and seek their own happiness” (Rosenstand, 2021, p. 169). Growing up in Russia and moving to the U.S. post-WWI, Rand had plenty of experience at a young age of working for the wellness of the group. While not necessarily a bad thing, it gave her perspective on why looking out for oneself is a respectable thing to do.

I recognize one big issue with ethical egoism, the promotion of selfishness. First, it promotes a selfish society. In my opinion, the United States is already a very selfish and individualistic society, especially compared to collectivist countries such as Japan. While focusing on oneself is beneficial, one cannot succeed on their own. Humans are excellent at “working smarter, not harder” by colluding together to accomplish tasks. Additionally, I think ethical egoism fails to recognize that someone else failure has an effect on everyone. For example, today, if someone practiced ethical egoism to the extreme and only looked out for themselves, they could still fail if the farmer couldn’t grow crops because the ethical egoist turned down a request for help. While this isn’t a probable example, even a practicing ethical egoist can still fail if he stomps on everyone around him.

It is good that ethical egoism teaches the golden rule, but it also teaches us to make decisions in favor of our own self-interest. I think this can and does overlap and cause confusion among practicing ethical egoists. My own stand is that it has good intentions, but it fails to solve more complex issues. It is good to think about when making very simple and low-impact decisions but can’t explain huge fallouts if the wrong decision is made on a complex issue. For example, when making a business decision regarding multiple employees and distributors, the decision-making process is too complex and has too many moving parts for ethical egoism to be accurate. It cannot factor in that helping one person would help oneself much more in the long run if that opportunity had not presented itself yet. I don’t think that teaching acting in one’s own self-interest is inherently wrong, but it is not a complex enough system to make many decisions on.

Reference

Rosenstand, N. (2021). The moral of the story: an introduction to ethics (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.