Get your quality homework help now and stand out.Our professional writers are committed to excellence. We have trained the best scholars in different fields of study.Contact us now at http://www.essaysexperts.net/ and place your order at affordable price done within set deadlines.We always have someone online ready to answer all your queries and take your requests.

1. Ethical Egoism Sample Essay
Ethical egoism specifies that one is supposed to uphold their own self-
interest. It is within the preservation of one’s self interests that they are
in a position to maximize on their potentials. An individual cannot
flourish if they supress their needs so as to satisfy the needs of others.
Therefore, for morality to be achieved, one must first preserve their
personal interest, then once satisfied, they can satisfy those of others.
A worldwide truth is that whatever would help in survival is good, and
whatever hinders survival is evil. As such, an individual who would not
principally reserve their own life as the major purpose is so good as
dead.
Ethical egoism is categorized by Medlin into hypothetical and
categorical egoism. Categorical egoism argues every individual is
supposed to pursue their individual interests. Hypothetical egoism on
the other hand argues it is necessary for one to observe their interests
wisely, if they are interested in attaining this specific end. Medlin
states, “…hypothetical egoism is the view that by maximizing one’s own
utility, we will all be better off. This is not really egoism but a version of
closet utilitarianism that cites a utilitarian for emphasizing self-
interested reasons in acting.” What he argues is that ethical egoism
must comprise of both universal and categorical egoism. However, he
argues categorical egoism is inconsistent since the egoist cannot sell
their idea to other individuals. In the event he does, he faces the risk of
convincing them to look at their own interests which can be
detrimental in attaining his goals. I am in agreement with the theory
since categorical egoism places every individual in extreme positions
where they are unable to depend on others for purposes of achieving
their interests and that can be quite risky. Additionally, this kind of
attitude would also make the individual dependent on themselves and
once they convince others of the same, they inconvenience themselves
in that process.

2. Utilitarianism and Deontological Ethics
Utilitarianism refers to an ethical principle through which an action is
rights if it has the tendency of getting the most happiness for both the
individual executing an action and all others. Utilitarian therefore
focuses on an actions repercussions rather than on its intrinsic nature
or intentions of the individual. Classical utilitarianism is hedonist,
though morals apart from, or in addition to, pleasure can be employed,
or- more objectively, and in a description common in economics-
anything might be considered as valuable if it seems to be an object of
informed or coherent desire. Check of utility maximization can also be
directly applied to single acts or acts only directly through some objects
that are inappropriate of moral assessment like, rules of conduct.
Utilitarianism, refers ta theory that makes up Normative Ethics. It holds
that desirable and definitive course of action pursues to maximize on
satisfaction and happiness and minimizes on pain or suffering. Its
theories are based on utility explaining the reason people seek
satisfaction. The measure of an individual’s happiness is what
determines the measure of their wrong or right. Utilitarianism is a kind
of consequentialism that means, so as to establish right action, there is
a need to analyse consequences that arise as a result. As such, the
relevance of consequences differentiates utilitarianism from egoism. As
such, utilitarianism, unlike egoism is where one seeks to acquire
knowledge for the overall good of others while also seeking to satisfy
their own needs.
Utilitarianism was supported in full by Bentham and Mill. They did this
by linking the good with that was pleasurable. They recognized the
theory people are supposed to maximize good. Also, they gave views
one should impartially display they seek to maximize their own good.
Consequently, the reasons one has in promoting the overall are the
same reasons another individual would promote good. John Stuart Mill,
on utilitarianism topic stated, Actions are right in proportion as they

3. tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse
of happiness”. According to him, happiness can be equalled to pleasure,
and absence of pain, while unhappiness can be equalled to pain and
absence of pleasure. He further added, “Pleasure and freedom from
pain, are the only things as desirable ends… all desirable things are
desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to
the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.”
As far as political history goes, utilitarianism is very influential. Bentham
and Mill argued that utilitarian rule of governance was quite a
realizable policy through democracy. Jeremy Bentham, regarding the
utility principle argues, “Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to
point out to what we ought to do… by the principle of utility is meant
that principle which approves or disapproves of every action
whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or
diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or,
what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that
happiness. I say of every action whatsoever, and therefore not only of
every action of a private individual, but of every measure of
government.”
Bentham goes on and formulates a technique for calculation of values
of pains and pleasures. Over the years, this has been known as hedonic
calculus. According to Bentham’s formula, there are factors affecting
pleasures and pain and these are: certainty/uncertainty, duration,
intensity and remoteness/propinquity. Such factors aid in establishing
the value of pain or pleasure. Benthan also defends his formula by
making the argument that, “In all this, there is nothing than what the
practice of mankind, wherever they have a clear view of their own
interest, is perfectly comfortable to.”
Also John Stuart Mill, goes a long way to offer his argument in support
of utilitarianism. However, he rejects quantitative utility measurement.
He states that, “It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to

4. recognise the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and
more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating
all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation
of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.”
Consequently, Mill believes there are some pleasures of intellect which
are fundamentally superior to physical pleasures. Further, he states,
“Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the
lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s
pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no
instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and
conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be
persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal, is better satisfied with
his lot than they are with theirs… A being of higher faculties requires
more to make him happy, is capable of more acute suffering, and is
certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type;
but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what
he feels to be a lower grade of existence… It is better to a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than
a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is
because they only know their own side of the question…”
Mill on the other hand contends “many who are capable of the higher
pleasures, occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone
them to the lower. But this is quite compatible with full appreciation of
the intrinsic superiority of the higher.” He maintains his appeal to the
individuals encountering relevant levels of pleasure that are equally
similar to what should happen when making an assessment of pleasure
quantity. Mill also goes on to establish that people not only desire
happiness but rather, it is the only thing they ever desire. He therefore,
disapproves the argument individuals could desire other things like
virtue. Conclusively, Mill argues, “The principle of utility does not mean
that any given pleasure, as music, for instance, or any given exemption
from pain, as for example health, are to be looked upon as means to a

5. collective something termed happiness, and to be desired on that
account. ”
Immanuel Kant formulated the theory known as Categorical Imperative
which offers moral judgment of an action according to specific set of
rules. Deontological ethics as such is referred to as duty/rule based
ethics. Therefore, people who act from duty are those considered to be
acting in a manner that is morally right. What makes actions wrong or
right are not consequences, but rather, motives of the individual
executing an action. Kant makes the argument that the highest good is
supposed to be good in itself without any qualification. Of something
good, he says this, “Nothing in the world-indeed nothing even beyond
the world-can possibly be conceived without qualification except a
good will.” Kant had 3 major establishments of categorical imperative.
First, one is supposed to act according to a rule that they would
consider as a universal law. Secondly, one should act, in a manner to
treat humanity not as a means but always an end in itself. Third, every
individual is supposed to act as if they were part of legislating team in a
global kingdom of ends.
Since deontological theories are understood well as opposed to
consequentialist ones, brief look at consequentialism and the review of
glitches inspires deontological challengers, offers supportive
introduction to taking up deontological theories themselves.
Consequentialists give such argument choices-acts and/or intentions-
are supposed to be evaluated ethically by the state of affairs they
cause. Therefore, consequentialists are supposed to stipulate initial
state of affairs that are of fundamental great value-often known,
jointly, “the Good.” They are in a position to emphasize whatever
varieties lead to an escalation of the good, can bring more of the same,
are choices that are morally correct to implement and make.
Consequentialists can and they always differ widely when it comes to
specification of the Good. There are some consequentialists who are
monists regarding the Good. Utilitarian’s, for instance, attach the Good

6. with joy, pleasure, desire gratification or “welfare” in another sense.
Other consequentialists are pluralists concerning the Good. Some of
these pluralists trust how the good gets dispersed among individuals
(or all sentimental beings) is in itself, partly constitutive of the Good,
while conventional utilitarian’s merely average or add each individual’s
share of the Good in order to attain the Good intensification.
From these two criticisms, the account that is most plausible is that
made by Immanuel Kant. This is attributed to the fact that it is true the
motives of an individual in executing a given action are real
determinants of whether the actions are wrong or right. Additionally, as
opposed to utilitarianism, deontological ethics demands one is
supposed to act by adhering to a set of rules, while they maintain
humanity. Deontological ethics is what makes it possible for one to
regard the good highly while also seeking to achieve their own
satisfaction. Therefore, this ethics portrays less selfishness compared to
utilitarianism.
Ethical Relativism
Objectivity refers to the act or portraying the truth without taking into
consideration subjects of feelings or perceptiveness. An objective truth
exists independently from the mind of the subject. Objectivity makes it
possible for moral judgment to be made without external partiality or
influence. On the other hand, subjectivity offers the theory that the
mind can offer a solid base for factual experience. Subjectivism as such
uses an individual’s experience as the basis of all law and measure.
Rachel looks at cultural relativism as a theory regarding nature of
morality. No absolute or objective truth exists in morality. Aspects of
wrong and right are just matters of opinion and opinions are always the
subject of differing cultures. Rachel makes the argument that if cultural
relativism should be held as true, first, no customs of other societies
need to be judged as morally right. Second, the theory should forbid us
from criticizing the values and codes of other societies and our own.

7. Third, if cultural relativism theory is to be held, then decision on
whether actions are morally wrong or right would be made by simple
use of societal standards. Additionally, holding the theory also means
there would not be any reason for progress morally. Additionally,
holding the theory means there would be no moral progress reason.
From the reasons aforementioned, Rachel disputes cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism is an aspect that stipulates for one to have an
understanding of culture of a given society, they are supposed to first
and foremost, put aside their cultural assumptions in order to avoid
prejudgements. On the other hand, ethical relativism attempts to
compare ethical differences of 2 or more cultures. It also explains no
foundation exists that directs one to make judgements of values on
whether one thing is better than another. Rachel also distinguished
ethical and cultural relativism by stating cultural relativism is a theory
on morality nature, while another instance, he states cultural relativism
is a theory on nature of morality, while still on another instance, he
states one can learn some good things from a bad doctrine (referring to
ethical relativism). As such, it is wise to have evidence that is conclusive
on what is bad or good. Take for instance the case discussed by Rachel-
that of female genital mutilation. One could argue, basing their
reasoning on global ethical criteria that female genital mutilation is not
supposed to be practised on others. However, it never would be wise to
make the conclusion those engaged in the practice are the ones to
blame. They could be influenced by false beliefs, and, driven by
differing customs in society, they had to do what they did.
Rachel believes in the theory that, “…moral language is not a fact-
stating language, it is not typically used to convey information. Its
purpose is entirely different. It is used, first, as a means of influencing
people’s behaviour; if someone says ‘you ought not to do that’, they
are trying to stop you from doing it. And second, moral language is used
to express (not report) one’s attitude. Saying ‘Betty Friedan is a good
woman’, is not like saying ‘I approve of Friedan’, but is like saying

8. ‘Hurrah for Friedan!’ The difference between emotivism and
subjectivism should now be obvious. Simple subjectivism interpreted
ethical sentences as statements of fact, of a special kind- namely, as
reports of the speaker’s attitudes.” I am in agreement with his
conclusion because emotivism, in so much as it is superior to
subjectivism, has one major problem, which is: it cannot justify the
position of reason in ethics.
We have amazing discounts. Do not fail to contact us and score low
marks in your papers fearing high rates. At PremiumEssays.net, we
have competitive and friendliest prices in the market. We ensure that
you save your money, every time you come to us for assistance. Visit
us today and get reduced prices on all our products.