2.

5 Ethical Egoism

1-1
1-1
Definition of Ethical Egoism

• Each person should focus exclusively on

his or her self-interest
• Morally right action: that action that
provides self with maximum long-term
benefit
• Ayn Rand, author of The Fountainhead
and Atlas Shrugged, espoused a theory
akin to ethical egoism
1-2
1-2
Case for Ethical Egoism

• It is practical since we are already inclined to do

what’s best for ourselves
• It is better to let other people take care of
themselves
• The community can benefit when individuals put
their well-being first
• Other moral principles are rooted in the principle
of self-interest

1-3
1-3
Case Against Ethical Egoism

• An easy moral philosophy may not be the best moral

philosophy
• We know a lot about what is good for someone else
• Self-interest can lead to blatantly immoral behavior
• Other moral principles are superior to principle of self-
interest
• People who take the good of others into account lead
happier lives
• By definition, does not respect the ethical point of view
• Not a workable ethical theory
1-4
1-4
2.6 Kantianism

1-5
1-5
Critical Importance of Good Will

• Good will: the desire to do the right thing

• Immanuel Kant: Only thing in the world that
is good without qualification is a good will
• Reason should cultivate desire to do right
thing

1-6
1-6
Categorical Imperative (1st Formulation)

Act only from moral rules that you can at the

same time will to be universal moral laws.

1-7
1-7
Illustration of 1st Formulation
• Question: Can a person in dire straits make a promise
with the intention of breaking it later?
• Proposed rule: “I may make promises with the intention
of later breaking them.”
• The person in trouble wants his promise to be believed
so he can get what he needs.
• Universalize rule: Everyone may make & break
promises
• Everyone breaking promises would make promises
unbelievable, contradicting desire to have promise
believed
• The rule is flawed. The answer is “No.”
1-8
1-8
A Quick Check

• When evaluating a proposed action,

reverse roles
• What would you think if that person did the
same thing to you?
• Negative reaction evidence that your will
to do that action violates the Categorical
Imperative

1-9
1-9
Categorical Imperative (2nd Formulation)

Act so that you treat both yourself

and other people as ends in themselves
and never only as a means to an end.

This is usually an easier formulation to work

with than the first formulation of the
Categorical Imperative.

1-10
1-10
Kant: Wrong to Use Another Person
Solely as a Means to an End

1-11
1-11
Plagiarism Scenario

• Carla
– Single mother
– Works full time
– Takes two evening courses/semester
• History class
– Requires more work than normal
– Carla earning an “A” on all work so far
– Carla doesn’t have time to write final report
• Carla purchases report; submits it as her own work

1-12
1-12
Kantian Evaluation (1st Formulation)

• Carla wants credit for plagiarized report

• Rule: “You may claim credit for work performed
by someone else”
• If rule universalized, reports would no longer be
credible indicator’s of student’s knowledge, and
professors would not give credit for reports
• Proposal moral rule is self-defeating
• It is wrong for Carla to turn in a purchased report

1-13
1-13
Kantian Evaluation (2nd Formulation)

• Carla submitted another person’s work as

her own
• She attempted to deceive professor
• She treated professor as a means to an
end
– End: passing the course
– Means: manipulate professor
• What Carla did was wrong
1-14
1-14
Case for Kantianism

• Aligns with common moral concern: “What

if everyone acted that way?”
• Produces universal moral guidelines
• Treats all persons as moral equals

1-15
1-15
Perfect and Imperfect Duties

• Perfect duty: duty obliged to fulfill without

exception
– Example: Telling the truth
• Imperfect duty: duty obliged to fulfill in
general but not in every instance
– Example: Helping others

1-16
1-16
Case Against Kantianism
• Sometimes no rule adequately characterizes an
action
• Sometimes there is no way to resolve a conflict
between rules
– In a conflict between a perfect duty and an imperfect
duty, perfect duty prevails
– In a conflict between two perfect duties, no solution
• Kantianism allows no exceptions to perfect
duties
• Despite weaknesses, a workable ethical theory
1-17
1-17
2.7 Act Utilitarianism

1-18
1-18
Principle of Utility
• Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
• An action is good if its benefits exceeds its harms
• An action is bad if its harms exceed its benefits
• Utility: tendency of an object to produce happiness or
prevent unhappiness for an individual or a community
• Happiness = advantage = benefit = good = pleasure
• Unhappiness = disadvantage = cost = evil = pain

1-19
1-19
Principle of Utility
(Greatest Happiness Principle)

An action is right (or wrong) to the extent

that it increases (or decreases) the
total happiness of the affected parties.

1-20
1-20
Principle of Utility

1-21
1-21
Act Utilitarianism

• Utilitarianism
– Morality of an action has nothing to do with intent
– Focuses on the consequences
– A consequentialist theory
• Act utilitarianism
– Add up change in happiness of all affected beings
– Sum > 0, action is good
– Sum < 0, action is bad
– Right action to take: one that maximizes the sum
1-22
1-22
Bentham: Weighing Pleasure/Pain

• Intensity
• Duration
• Certainty
• Propinquity
• Fecundity
• Purity
• Extent
1-23
1-23
Highway Routing Scenario

• State may replace a curvy stretch of

highway
• New highway segment 1 mile shorter
• 150 houses would have to be removed
• Some wildlife habitat would be destroyed

1-24
1-24
Evaluation

• Costs
– $20 million to compensate homeowners
– $10 million to construct new highway
– Lost wildlife habitat worth $1 million
• Benefits
– $39 million savings in automobile driving costs
• Conclusion
– Benefits exceed costs
– Building highway a good action

1-25
1-25
Case for Act Utilitarianism

• Focuses on happiness
• Down-to-earth (practical)
• Comprehensive

1-26
1-26
Case Against Act Utilitarianism

• Unclear whom to include in calculations and how

far out into the future to consider
• Too much work
• Ignores our innate sense of duty
• We cannot predict consequences with certainty
• Susceptible to the problem of moral luck
• Overall, a workable ethical theory

1-27
1-27