Egoism/Ethics
An egoist looks out for his or her own self-interests. In fact, an ethical egoist stance assumes that the morally correct choice must be based on self-interest. Maximizing self-interest may or may not benefit others indirectly. However, an egoist knows that selfless service does not always lead to beneficial results and that the only individual whose life we can control is the actor -- the self.
Egoists' stance on affirmative action would therefore depend on self-interest alone. A black woman egoist may support affirmative action knowing that she would benefit personally. Likewise, a white man egoist would likely oppose affirmative action knowing that his self-interest depended on the status quo.
Interestingly, however, the egoist may support that which benefits others is -- and only if -- that action also benefits the self-directly or indirectly. Therefore, an egoist black politician might oppose affirmative action if the stance would earn him support in an upcoming election. An egoist white politician might support affirmative action for similar reasons. In either case, the egoist does not take a stance on affirmative action because it would benefit a group of people, but because it would benefit their own career. An egoist African-American may oppose affirmative action for other self-centered reasons too. For example, the individual might not want to be accused of being hired on the basis of her minority status alone; their social life may benefit more from a less desirable job. In another scenario, a white man who was married to an African-American woman might support affirmative action even though it would ruin his chances for a promotion for the sole reason that his personal life would suffer otherwise. Thus, the egoists' decisions are usually situational and highly personal. What benefits one individual may not benefit another.
Affirmative action programs are egoist from the point-of-view of those they benefit. To some white males, especially egoists whose jobs are directly affected by such programs, affirmative action equals "reverse discrimination." However, egoist minorities who have been previously excluded from positions of power and who would benefit directly would support affirmative action.
Since it is well documented that the largest portion of the gas guzzler market does not have any legitimate practical need for gas guzzling vehicles, it is much more likely to be beneficial to society, on the whole, to phase out gas guzzlers. Potential injustice would also be avoided with respect to those individuals who do have a legitimate requirement for vehicles often considered "gas guzzlers." The proposal does not
Therefore, the welfare of others cannot be relevant to judging what one ought to do. This is a very interesting argument, but it does not establish its conclusion. Although it may be that every human being has a right to preserve his own life, one would like some evidence in support of this key premise. Even if there is a human right to self-preservation, it does not follow that
However, the issue is more nuanced -- what if, as a humanitarian effort, a pharmaceutical company sold recently expired drugs at very low cost to an impoverished developing nation in the grips of an epidemic? What if a food company donated food that was safe but 'past its expiration date' to a famine-stricken nation? In this case, a utilitarian calculus would support such exchanges. The balance between the benefit of
00pm today. 70 words questions. The competing ethical claims regarding the hiring of the three workers are as follows: one is assumed to be more in need because of an objective claim of financial hardship (Dinu); another subjectively feels more aggrieved because of reduced circumstances (Bishanno), and the third is seen as worse off because of her health status even though she is neither as poor or unhappy as the
Should Canada reinstate the death penalty for planned and premeditated murder What is your position and why Why are people punished for their crimes? What is the driving idea behind punitive sentencing in criminal justice? Is life behind bars somehow to be considered more humane of a sentence for a person who commits premeditated murder? Or is knowing that one will never again have his freedom a worse punishment than death?
On Why Evolution is TrueIntroductionDarwin catapulted the theory of evolution to the main stage with his Origin of Species. In Why Evolution is True, Coyne (2009) takes a look at the theory of evolution and breaks it down from various perspectives to show why it has more explanatory power than the theory of Creationism. This review identifies the themes in Coyne’s (2009) book, discusses my own personal journey of discovery,
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now