Ethical Egoism: Right vs. Consequences for Others - Essay Sample

Introduction

In the understanding of ethical theories, every action has been known to have consequences. Viewed as consequentialist theories - which provide that the consequences of an individual's actions are the basis for moral consideration towards the specific action, ethical egoism holds that more conduct should be judged through self-interest. According to ethical egoism, as developed by Sidgwick, it provides the right consequences for an individual outweigh the result placed on other individuals (Rachels, 2012). In egoism, the morality described by the consequence of an action on an individual (Rachels, 2012). In contrast, utilitarianism looks into the idea of the greater good whereby, the morality of an action is judged by how the consequence affects everyone else (Riley, 2010). In both ethical egoism and utilitarianism, they focus on the outcome or consequence as the central drive if that action; however, the significant difference is based on where the actions are directed. As people have different moral perceptions, the question of ethical egoism versus utilitarianism delivers a significant dilemma in understanding what can be considered morally right or wrong. This comparison is essential as it helps in the increasing understanding of what is expected of an individual and viewed as morally right and how value is placed between the involved individual and others. Overall, both moral theories provide a significant understanding of morality and judgment towards actions. This report will discuss the question of ethical egoism versus utilitarianism, present my position of the most reasonable consequentialist moral theory, analyze a situational dilemma, and finally apply each theory to the given conclusions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

As a normative theory, ethical egoism claims how individuals should act rather than how they act (Rachels, 2012). The majority of egoists argue that behaving upon one's interest could result in an affirmative action since the person is aware of to benefit himself or herself. The egoists believe that other people will act in their interests, making it needless to take action merely for their advantage. Despite the ability of ethical egoism to reconcile self-interest and morality, this theory cannot be advocated as an acceptable moral theory. For instance, ethical egoism misrepresents altruism - a doctrine that opposes egoism and base morality on the concern for other individuals' interests. According to ethical egoists like Rand, he claims that "in the event, an individual embraces altruism, then the person must also recognize low self-esteem and disrespect to other people" (Machan, 2001). Also, Rand recognizes altruism as an impediment to individual interests arguing that altruism cannot be an ethical theory that makes ethical egoism acceptable (Machan, 2001).

However, this argument, as provided by Rand, is wrong since establishing that altruism cannot be considered ethical theory does not offer reliable evidence for endorsing ethical egoism. As provided by the principle of charity in defining ethical egoism, the normative theory does not give any moral basis for solving conflicts between individuals and could result in conflicts of interest. In the event ethical egoism was to be followed, it means various individual interests would conflict with another person's interests. In such an occurrence, it makes it almost impossible for people to pursue their interests or solve conflicts simultaneously. Furthermore, ethical egoism has been known to entail a logic similar to racism in terms of the theory's conceptual construction. Racists individuals tend to treat people differently based on their race, even though they have no justification. Similarly, ethical egoists tend to divide people into oneself and the rest. This makes the theory an arbitrary doctrine.

Comparatively, utilitarianism moral theory can be considered as the more robust theory and is more reasonable compared to egoism (Riley, 2010). Utilitarianism is a simple theory as it is based on the evaluative principle of doing what produces a large amount of good (Riley, 2010). First, utilitarianism maximizes utility involved with morality. If a person undertakes actions that yield more utility than others, then it is definite that the highest possible level of utility will be realized. For instance, Sidgwick argues that "as a rational human being, one is bound to aim at the good generally, which even if it involves overlooking the good of one individual for the good of others" (Skelton, 2013).

Utilitarianism confirms the truth of moral judgment objectively compared to ethical egoism. Often, individuals believe that morality is dependent on personal interests and is subjective. However, according to utilitarianism, it offers the objectivity to identify moral true and false actions (Skelton, 2013). This involves looking at the foreseeable consequence of the available possibilities. Even though some individuals might argue that utilitarianism does not provide the amount of well-being on the decisions people make, it gives a significant platform for evaluating and deciding on what can deliver the best outcomes. With such an ability to assess the consequences of an action, then one can have objectively correct answers regarding what actions can be considered morally wrong or right. Further, with the involvement of other aspects within utilitarianism, such as rule utilitarianism, it tends to explain a given action. Such consideration provides an opportunity for the normative theory to interact with other parties such as doctors and judges. These advantages and opportunities offered by utilitarianism make a more reasonable and more robust normative theory compared to ethical egoism.

Nonetheless, individuals against utilitarianism moral theory might argue that the approach might give objectively wrong answers since it might permit particular actions that are morally wrong. Also, some may argue that utilitarianism undermines trust, and could be too demanding. However, when we look at the overall function of utilitarianism and its ability to ensure that the involved individual considers the consequences of different actions, this outweighs the various critics against utilitarianism.

Situational Dilemma

The situation dilemma involves the lifeboat case scenario. In the case, four individuals; Dudley, the captain; Stephens, the first mate; Brooks, a sailor; and Richard Parker, a cabin boy) are seen in a lifeboat in the sea over a thousand miles from land. In the case, the crew had spent around nineteen days without food when Dudley decided to kill Richard and ate him. However, the individuals were charged with murder for killing and eating Richard. The situation dilemma can be viewed from both the ethical egoism point of view and the utilitarianism perspective as well when the question of law is excluded.

With a view from the ethical egoism perspective, it holds that Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks might have acted morally. Since ethical egoism holds that individual interest owns moral worth, this explains the reasoning as to why the actions of Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks killing Richard could be morally justified. However, this ethical theory fails to provide the objective truth since the individuals did not collectively have a similar interest. In consideration of the utilitarianism perspective, the actions of Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks could be seen as morally right to some extent. With Dudley's decision to kill Richard since they needed to eat to survive, this significantly meets the requirements of utilitarianism, which involves acting on the action with the best morally. Based on the details held by utilitarianism, an individual holds the ultimate choice between options or consequences based on their reactions to evaluate the morally justifiable action.

Conclusion

As both ethical egoism and utilitarianism focus on the outcome of an action, it is essential to note that they deliver distinct differences in terms of morality. With the different philosophical definitions provided on egoism and utilitarianism, the normative theories significantly influence an individual's ability to decide on the point of action that is morally right or wrong. However, under arguments on utilitarianism, it can be considered more robust than ethical egoism since it looks at providing a general good to the people. According to utilitarianism, in case every individual finds the welfare of others before their own, it is likely that this could provide the ultimate good to everyone. Establishing the details between ethical egoism and utilitarianism is essential as people seek to ensure morality.

References

Machan, T. R. (2001). Teaching Ayn Rand's version of ethical egoism. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 71-81. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41560171

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

Riley, J. (2010). Mill's extraordinary utilitarian moral theory. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 9(1), 67-116. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1470594X09351952

Skelton, A. (2013). Sidgwick's Argument for Utilitarianism and His Moral Epistemology: A Reply to David Phillips. Revue d'etudes benthamiennes, (12). https://doi.org/10.4000/etudes-benthamiennes.675