Something of beneficial value should be cared for, while something that’s non-beneficial should not. Utilitarianism measures out the utility of something, or it’s value. Someone that is utilitarian wants to see what could bring people the most pleasure and happiness, so they strive to allow others to be happy and pleasurable. Psychological egoism is a subcategory of egoism. This is “the claim that all actions are motivated by the good to one’s self,” (Leib).
Utilitarianism is a popular type of consequentialism, rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism. Utilitarians think that happiness is the measure to judge the consequences, whether the action is right or wrong depends almost entirely on the good or bad consequences. Rule utilitarianism argues that if you obey the rules it will benefit the larger number of sentinel beings. more absolutist then relative, based on past experience. Rules generally promote the greater good, it is intended to guide us to make the best decisions for what needs to be done.
The first topic in philosophical ethics I would like to discuss is Aristotle’s virtue ethics. As an objectionist, Aristotle tried to determine what a good person is. To Aristotle, happiness is what made you a good person, and that is what the chief goal in life is. He believed that happiness was achieved when a species determines its’ own telos, or purpose. Along with that, Aristotle determined three facts of humanity.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, the concept of happiness is introduced as the ultimate good one can achieve in life as well as the ultimate goal of human existence. As Aristotle goes on to further define happiness, one can see that his concept is much different from the 21st-century view. Aristotelian happiness can be achieved through choosing to live the contemplative life, which would naturally encompass moralistic virtue. This differs significantly from the modern view of happiness, which is heavily reliant on material goods. To a person in the 21st-century, happiness is simply an emotional byproduct one experiences as a result of acquiring material goods.
What is happiness to Aristotle? Aristotle had his own beliefs on the definition of happiness, and what it means to be happy. He believed happiness is expressed through living well and accomplishing goals, which are adapted for human nature. Happiness is not expressed through how you may feel, but how one thrives in their daily tasks. Aristotle believed that we are
This ‘good’ is represented first and foremost by the moral virtue, which in its turn is presented through individual’s desire, action and goal and not by the uniqueness of the Face of Other. In Aristotle humanity becomes virtuous rationally by volition and willingness to act. As Aristotle puts
Kant certainly did. In his view, human beings have “an intrinsic worth, i.e., dignity,” which makes them valuable’ “above all price.” ” “When Kant said that the value of human beings “is above all price,” he did not intend this as mere rhetoric but as an objective judgment about the place of human beings in the scheme of things. There are two important facts about people that, in his view, support this judgment. First, because people have desires and ‘goals, other things have value for them, in relation to their projects. Second, and even more important, humans have “an intrinsic worth, i.e., dignity,” because they are rational agents that is, capable of reasoning about his conduct and who freely decides what he will do, on the basis of his own rational conception of what is best.” (Rachels, 2003) As a human person having the capacity of reason and rationality, Rachels (2003) further states that, “Because the moral law is the law of reason, rational beings are the embodiment of the moral law itself.
Emotionales vs. Rationales We all have our own way of understanding ethics. Socrates and Confucious also had their own way of looking at ethics. Socrates thought that rational knowledge was the decisive factor of human life, which was "acquired through a faculty of reasoning". On the other hand, Confucious thought that kinship love was the decisive factor of human life without leaving out the importance of knowledge and thinking out. They both are very alike but also have their differences with very good reasonings to support their understanding of the decisive factor of human life, although they might lean toward one thing in the end to actually define the deciding factor of human life.
A great man called John Berger once said, “Without ethics, man has no future. This is to say, mankind without them cannot be itself. Ethics determine choices and actions and suggest difficult priorities.” This is one of the many quotes that signify the importance of ethics on the whole. Ethics are moral principles that govern a person’s behavior. Keeping this in mind, a better dissection of the definition of ethics can be derived from understanding the various affects that culture, religions and philosophies may have on a person.
The theory does not differentiate varying kinds of motivation. In contrast to goal-setting theory, SDT believes that to obtain better results motivation needs to be autonomous and have intrinsic goals. Another work motivation theory is Action Regulation Theory (ART) which can be described as a goal-oriented behavior where there is no cause for action unless there is a goal. ART looks at ways people meet their goals through action and regulation. This theory is useful in understanding organizational design and workflow when issues exist with work procedures.