ETHICAL EGOISMsteemCreated with Sketch.

in #ethics4 months ago

Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest.[1] Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer can be considered ethical in this sense.

Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self (also known as the subject) with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and "the self" to a status not granted to others). But it also holds that one is not obligated to sacrifice one's own interests (as altruism does) to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being, but he has the choice to do so.

Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective). However, utilitarianism is held to be agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial): it does not treat the subject's (i.e. the self's, i.e. the moral "agent's") own interests as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others. *

logiczombie_0007.jpglogiczombie_0007.jpglogiczombie_0007.jpg
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.

Sort:  

Greetings dear friend @logiczombie.

I had to read your article several times in order to decipher it and understand it better.

Altruism: The conditions of judgment force me to help others.
Utilitarianism: There must be equal conditions of judgment for both me and others.
Selfishness: The conditions of judgment should favor me only at all times, without granting elements of benefit to others.

So to achieve greater harmony among the members of our community, the practice of Utilitarianism should predominate.
We will always find cases of Altruism that represent a minimum percentage but that are loaded with great humanitarian value and above all, we should totally reject selfishness. Although unfortunately it will always be present.

All best, Piotr.

Thanks for taking the time to leave a reply!

It seems obvious to me that we should all hold ourselves to the same ethical standards we impose on others.

If the U.S.A. believes it is unethical for the U.S.S.R. to hold prisoners indefinitely without trial, then the U.S.A. shouldn't hold prisoners indefinitely without trial.

If the U.S.A. believes it is unethical for a country to stockpile nuclear weapons, the U.S.A. shouldn't stockpile nuclear weapons.

Free FREE Will:

Which of these allows for the most amount of freewill? I think that might be ethical egoism. Well, ultimately it comes down to the individual, that is where they might be. Because some people may feel like they are stuck within psychological egoism, like a mental prison. I probably should study some of these more. I guess I didn't know that utilitarianism is objective. That is interesting.

Objectivity vs Subjectivity

I believe in objectivity. I believe that people are generally stuck within subjectivity to some extent. But that doesn't mean objectivity is not out there. The X-Files Truth is out there. Humans need help. We have to ask for help. We should grow in character development. When we don't, then emotionalism takes over. Our animal nature begins to devolve us towards egoism, towards selfishness, towards indulging in instant gratification, etc. Right and wrong exists.

Clear as Mud

But our understanding of morality can be limited at times. But that doesn't mean that relativity is then therefore absolute. I believe in God. But I also know that there might be no god. So, I'm going to believe in God. People can call me crazy for believing in an imaginary creator. That is fine. I believe in the value of letting people believe what they want to believe, good or bad, as long as they're not actively and directly violating the private property rights of other people too excessively. So, that is what judges are for, for settling cases, conflicts, battles, in a court of law.

I guess I didn't know that utilitarianism is objective.

I'm pretty sure it's not objective. Even though that's how it's described in the article.

Well, that's good. I thought I was losing my mind or something. I try to have an open mind. I saw it and I was surprised.

I believe in objectivity.

Are you familiar with the NOUMENON?

No. Let me Google it. Wait, Duck Duck Go it. So, Noumenon is like a contrast to Phenomenon which is directly observable. Noumenon is indirectly inferred and involves like intellectual perception that is like engineered in the mind as opposed to simply observed through the general five senses of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, touching, sensing.

In a strictly textbook sense, NOUMENON is the only "thing" that can be accurately described as "objective".