Ayn Rand also had an argument against ethical egoism believing it is a mistake to treat the interest of some individuals as being less important than the interest of others. She thought on the fact that your interest is yours is not relevant to their importance relative to the importance of the interest of others. So, it is a mistake to treat your own interests as if they are more important than the interest of others. Personally, I agree with Ayn Rand’s view supporting ethical egoism. I’ve realized that I only do whatever I choose to do for my own self benefit and self-interest.
However, there are many qualifications the good will depends on, and not just the inclination to do your duty because it is your duty. The good will may not be the only thing good without limitation, as it must be acted on by something. For example, If Kant’s theory were true, it would mean that it would be very difficult to be a good person because utilitarianism does not allow for acts that go above duty. First, there must be a distinction between what is right and what is good. Doing what is right means more about in conformity with fact, correct in judgement, or truth.
This is because of the earlier premise that it is inherent of humans to be born with selfish desires, thus education is necessary, rather than simply being important, which is Mencius’ views. In other words, as Xunzi believes that humans will perform bad deeds in an neutral environment where no education is present due to the bad human nature, he holds that education and rituals are necessary if a person were to perform good deeds/attain sagehood. However, as Mencius believes that humans will perform good deeds in an neutral environment due to the good human nature, he simply believes that education and rituals are important, not to the extent of
Altruism versus egoism has also lead down to conclusions allowing people to believe that is natural to be both selfish and helpful. However, by narrowing down this subject to the real question: how humans naturally act when given an instinctive opportunity to be altruistic or to be selfish, it is ultimately selfless.
The first is that “without freedom there can be no morality.“this is also used as justification for his view that only action can have a moral judgement associated with it. The second is that morality is an innate function of humans “we have it within ourselves”. Jung also heavily implies that the collective unconciuos is a force of good and that styling our actions in accordance with its “wishes” we can find the “right” path. This is not the same as trying to be “normal” which Jung calls “a hell of sterility and hopelessness” but rather the act of conforming to the moral ideal of society. The third is that the“shadow“is necessary for moral behaviour which coincides with his belief that for good to exist there must be evil.
Unless there is a way to prove that common sense is the ‘correct’ view then this “criticism has no force” (ibid). The problem with this response is that if utilitarianism does not cohere with humans’ common sense, then even if it does provide the ‘correct’ answers, it seems like a theory which is far removed for humans’ natural moral instincts and a challenge to understand, so would then not be the best theory to use when handling moral
Aristotle believes that when humans commit virtuous actions, they cannot be pained for those virtuous actions. If the human is pained because of an action in which the commit, then it is not considered virtuous. Given the right education, it should make us take desire in what is moral
Immanuel Kant who was a moral philosopher came up with the theory of duty for the sake of duty where he states that one should do good for the sake of doing good, not because there is something to gain from it but for the will of doing good, this is not the same with human rights because human rights are there to govern people from doing what is wrong and unjust, they involve the emotional state of the person and they also have exceptions whereas Kant’s moral theory leaves no room for
Virtue ethics is more about ‘being’ whereas moral ethics is more about ‘doing’ (Rondall, 2014). In order to act and behave in a morally correct way, one has to have a character and virtues that will support it. Being a virtuous person will enable you to act according to moral principle; however you cannot act according to moral principle and do your duty if you do not have the virtues that allow for this. Kant suggests that good will is achieved through intent, contributing to the argument that one cannot act morally if their intentions have ulterior motives (Rondall, 2014). The motivation behind duty is having the respect for moral law, thus inferring that one has to have respect which is gained through practice, learnt by habituation and taught from example (Johnson & Cureton, 2016).
The other obligations are on a more personal level and vary on every person. People have to act accordingly to their obligations regardless of the positive or negative outcome of their actions. According to deontologists, it is wrong to kill, to steal, to lie, and it is right to keep promises and to help people. One should not lie about anything even though that lie could save a lot of lives. In addition, one should not perform a prohibited action even though it could bring uncountable benefits to society (Kant’s Deontological ethics).
Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face. Furthermore, It is right to oppose something that is unjust. Individuals should do what they best believe is right in their opinions but laws shouldn’t be fully subjected by the people only or else it may lead to future conflicts and misleading mistakes. Overall, by desired changes, it causes destructive tension for
We cannot allow our beliefs and personal biases to influence the client. I believe this will be an ethical dilemma to deal. When my desire as the worker is to help the client work to the best of his/her interest and the need to respect his right to act in a way that the client feels best for him, may interfere with my job. Also, I consider confidentiality
Sometimes people excuse the damage they cause by saying this was a mistake or that they did not mean to cause the damage. Is this a valid excuse to avoid liability for damage caused? Explain your answer. • This is not a valid excuse to avoid liability the reason being that negligence or been carelessness should not be an excuse for an individual receiving damaged or being injured. All individuals are required to behave and act responsibly and reasonably.
Meaning, that we must be careful when expressing our thoughts that are based merely in our judgments without testing them with a fair and noble mind. With this in mind, no individual has the power to make another upset, sad, or feel any other emotion, as we have the power over our mind to allow it or not to allow it. However, some of us are quick to lead our opinions with our hearts or external factors, instead of seeing the bigger picture. Therefore, our quick judgments/reasoning can have an ugly impact in our world. But, what are truly the limits of human freedom?