Ethical egoism
is a moral theory. It tells us about what we are morally required and forbidden
to do. It simply states that there is one ultimate goal for all of us, and that
is to improve our own well-being even at the cost of other’s well beings. It
claims that actions are morally right just because they best promote one’s
self-interest. This means that if there are multiple options concerning
something that would best benefit you, the one that serves you best is the one
that morality requires. It can be understood that there are a few ways in which
Ethical Egoism can cause clashes deep within our personal moral standards. It
is clear that egoism prohibits us from doing some things that seem morally
good. Ex: Diving on a bomb to save the rest of your troop. According to Egoism it
is morally wrong to go out of your way to be altruistic. It also may require
some actions of us that seem highly immoral. This means that even in the event
we have to betray a friend or lie about a situation in furtherance of our own
wellbeing, Egoism permits that we do these things. In fact, it insists that we do these things to
promote our own self-interest. The latter would mean putting ourselves above
everyone else in order to get ahead. The text book makes an argument out of
this and rightfully so. There is an example where I hurt my leg and must drive
to the hospital. When I arrive there is another man who has the exact same
injury. The text goes on to explain that he is just as good of a citizen as I am. He is kind, smart, community-minded,
just as I am. We now ask, “Who gets priority?”
According to Egoism, I must morally put myself ahead of this other ailing man,
who is just as emotionally similar to me as I am to him. The interests of this
man, in regards to myself, count for nothing. The argument here is that how can
I justifiably discount the basic needs of others, in furtherance of my own
self-interest? This is an unreasonable act of will. Is it necessary for our own
wellbeing for us to be so selfish in our needs?
Personally I think the Egoist would
give us an answer that we would all expect him to give albeit somewhat indirect.
It can be best summarized by two claims voiced in the text book. If an action makes you better off, then
there is good reason for you to do it. (Let me add once more, at the cost
of other’s wellbeing’s.) If there is good
reason for you to do an action, then doing it must make you better off. If
this is the case, then what reason would one have allowing someone to receive
medical attention before themselves? I can’t really provide an answer for that
question. An Egoist would say that self-interest is always a good reason for
doing something even at the cost of someone else.
I would tend to agree with the first
part of the Egoist’s statement. Self-interest
is always a good reason for doing something. But is it really necessary
that we keep those around us lower than ourselves in regards to what we hold to
be most important? I don’t particularly think so, nor do I think Ethical Egoism
provides a grounded reason for why we should be so unwilling to share some even
ground with people we aren’t necessarily emotionally attached to. You must be able to balance your personal
needs with everyone else’s. Even then you can provide yourself with your own
necessary interests and not at the cost of other’s.
Moral progress is quite different
depending upon what culture you’re observing. Desegregating schools and
employers becoming more tolerant of blacks in the work place would be considered
a relatively recent moral progression in the United States. This may help
provide us with a definition of moral progress. It simply means that when our
actions become morally better than they were, we are morally progressing. As I
was reading chapter 19 I noted how that if ethical relativism was true, how are
we even where we are today? Ethical relativism forces us to conform to
society's norms-or else we contradict ourselves. The supplemental reading
described Ethical Relativism in a rather astounding, but simple argument. Such and such is socially approved.
Therefore such and such is good. This means that social approval is the
ultimate measure of morality. If Ethical Relativism is true, then it’s
impossible for us to consistently disagree with the values of our society. This,
in turn, means we couldn’t gain any moral headway. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
is perfect example of why Ethical Relativism can’t be valid. What did King do?
He went against what American culture considered morally acceptable. Treating blacks as second grade citizens is
socially acceptable within American culture. What is socially acceptable is
considered morally just. Therefore treating blacks as second grade citizens is
morally just. King fought this and look where we are today. Questioning
what is socially acceptable historically
has provided us with the healthiest changes seen within American culture since
the dawn of it, in my opinion. This one argument destroys the fabric that
Ethical Relativism is composed of. Ethical Relativism allows the basic views of
individuals or societies to determine the ultimate moral standards. Looking
back at racism it’s clear how such basic views can be the product of ignorance,
bias, and terrible reasoning yet they still existed and would still exist had a
small group of people not questioned what society considered acceptable. Ethical
Relativism doesn’t allow for fundamental moral progress and, in many cases,
create great contradictions; therefore their arguments have no ground.
