exam 2 Flashcards
(145 cards)
consequentialism
individuals ought to behave in ways that will bring about good consequences, different theories differ on who should benefit from these consequences
Utilitarianism
individuals ought to act in the interest of all concerned
Ethical egoist approach to embezzling money from work
Should John embezzle money from work?
- no because I‛ll get caught or have to move away from my family to a non-extradition
country.
Utilitarian approach to embezzling money from work
Should John embezzle money from work?
- no because I will harm the company, its employees, and its stockholders
Psychological Egoism
is a theory about how humans behave psychologically, this means the theory attempts to describe how human nature is, i.e. it is a descriptive theory
scientific/descriptive approach to egoism.
not an ethical theory.
strong form of psychological egoism
people always act in their own self-interest, we are psychologically predisposed to do so
weak form of psychological egoism
people often, but not always, act in their own self-interest
falsification
the scientific mandate that you must try to disprove a theory, and if you cannot do so, then it must be (more or less) true (Karl Popper)
Karl Popper
man of falsification
Naturalistic Fallacy/ weak form of psychological egoism
trying to get an ought (prescriptive) from an is (descriptive).
* There is no logical argument that conclusively proves that because people are behaving in
certain ways, they ought to do so or continue to do so. ex. am cheating wife, should continue cheating on wife
3 drawbacks of strong form of psychological egoism
- It is not falsifiable.
- They are theorizing if those are not indeed my (and your) motives. It is presumptuous for psychological egoists to argue that I always act in my own self-
interest, especially if I can find one counterexample of not having done so. - When all else fails, they often retreat to the position, that people always do what they
really want to do. If people “want” to perform a so-called unselfish act, then they are not really being
unselfish because they are doing what they actually want to do.
ethical egoism
normative ethical theory, we ought to behave selfishly. selfish as [1] self-preservation and [2] self-gratification.
e.g. Thomas Hobbes.
ethical egosim guy
Thomas hobbes
individual egoism
claims that everyone else ought to act in MY own best self-interest.
personal ethical egoism
claims that I ought to act in my own self-interest, but that I make no claims
about what anyone else ought to do.
Universal ethical egoism
claims as its basic principle that everyone should always act in his/her own
best self-interest, regardless of the interests of others, unless their
interests also serve his/hers.
problems with personal and individual ethical egoism
- There are serious problems with both, in that they apply only to one individual and cannot
be laid down for humanity in general.
- This is a real drawback since morality (or moral systems) should be applied to all human
beings. - There are problems associated with promulgating (laying out or setting forth) either of
these forms of ethical egoism.
- It probably would not be in the interest of the Individual or Personal egoists to state
their theory at all, because that might anger other people and thus thwart their own self-
interest. - Shouldn‛t a moral system be consistent?
* If a person has to propound one moral theory while knowingly and purposely operating
under another, then they are being inconsistent.
* How moral can this system be if it cannot be laid out for others to see? - Another moral problem with such individualistic systems is that they fail to take into
account the fact that humans are not isolated from each other, and that the moral and
immoral actions of all persons affect other people around them.
* These 2 versions of egoism are good only for 1 person and may not even be beneficial for
that individual, especially if anyone else finds out that they are really operating under
such a system.
* So these views of egoism are not impossible to hold, but they are highly suspect as valid
moral theories.
universal ethical egoism people
All individuals should always act in their own self-interest (i.e. universal egoism).
ex) Epicurus, Ayn Rand, Jesse Kalin, John Hospers.
Advantages of universal ethical egoism
1) It‛s Easier to Determine Self-Interest
- It is much easier for individuals to know what their own interests are then it is for them
to know what is in the best interest of others.
2) It Encourages Individual Freedom and Responsibility
- Egoists need only to consider their own self-interest and then take responsibility for
their actions.
3) Limitations To These Advantages
- Ethical egoism can work successfully, but it has severe limitations.
– Limit 1= the theory will work best as long as people are operating under relative isolation,
thereby minimizing the occasions for conflict among their self-interests.
– Limit 2= some principle of justice or compromise must be brought in, and it would probably
not be in everyone‛s self-interest. At this point egoists must become:
[1] utilitarians, or
[2] play their nonmoral game by telling people what they should do while hoping they
won‛t in fact do it.
* The real and immediate problem with egoism is that we do not live in self-sufficient
communities.
man defending universal ethical egoism
Jesse Kalin‛s In Defense of Egoism
man hating on universal ethical egoism
Brian Medlin‛s Ultimate Principles and Ethical Egoism
problems with universal ethical egoism
- Inconsistency
- Universal is inconsistent because you cannot state your position (as a universal ethical
egoist), since it is not in your self-interest to do so. You are acting in your own self-interest, which is not acting in my self-interest.
* It would not be in my interest to tell you that you should act in your own self-interest. - What is Meant by Everyone
- What do egoists mean when they state that everyone ought to act in their own self-
interest?
* Your self-interest and my self-interest are in conflict. How do we resolve this conflict? Great compromise is not the in the best interests of slaves
3) Difficulty in Giving Moral Advice
- Such advice is inconsistent, in that I should do what is in my own self-interest but must
advise you to act either in mine interest or in your‛s.
4) Blurring the Moral and Nonmoral Uses of Ought and Should
- “Ought” vs. “is” distinction.
* “Ought” and “should” are not always moral, there is a nonmoral sense.
ex) Instructions.
You should insert A into slot B.
* For Jesse Kalin: Should and ought mean no more than they would mean when applied to a
game or the directions for assembling something.
ex) Jesse says to Brian:
“You should kill me because I stand in the way of your having my wife, and it is in your
self-interest for you to do so, but because it is not in my self-interest for you to do so, I
hope you don‛t.”
* It is not incompatible with what Jesse says he thinks ought to be, but it is a strange
moral system that actually states what its advocate really does not want.
5) Inconsistent with Helping Professions
- Being inconsistent with helping professions is a criticism of ethical egoism in any of its
forms.
* It does not provide the proper ethical basis for people who are in the helping professions.
* They are in it for their own self-interest to some point.
jesse kailin’s response to difficulty in giving moral advice vs brain medlin’s critiques
- I should act in my own best interest.
You should act in your own best interest. - I should advise you to act in your own self-interest.
- But I need not want you to act in your own self-interest.
ex) Jesse and Brian are playing chess:
Jesse seeing that Brian could move his (Brian‛s) bishop and put Jesse‛s king in check,
believes that Brian ought to move his (Brian‛s) bishop but doesn‛t want him to, need not
persuade him to, and indeed “ought to sit there quietly, hoping he (Brian) does not move as
he (Brian) ought”. - Then Universal suffers the same problems as Individual and Personal, that what people
ought to do cannot be promulgated (i.e. presented for all to see). - That is, we have an ethical system that has to be secret, otherwise it will violate its own
major tenet: self-interest.
Brian Medlin:
[1] “But is not to believe that someone should act in a certain way, to try to persuade
him to do so? Does it make sense to say, ‘Of course you should do this, but… don‛t?‛”
[2] Without this logic, ethical systems amount to no more than mere abstract ideals
that their proponents hope will not actually be carried out.
[3] If Kalin is correct, Universal ethical egoism claims to be a moral system that is
based on the nonmoral- its rules actually have no more moral import than the rules
of a chess game or the directions for assembling a toy.
another name for universal ethical egoism
Rational ethical egoism