The Analysis Of Notions Egoism & Utilitarianism
Egoism is the ethical doctrine that morality has its foundations in self-interest. Why is utilitarianism not egoism? Egoism premises that the good outcomes are individual not group based, for group goodness outcomes. Actions, in egoism, are considered ethical, individually, if the individual benefits. While any advantage or disadvantage to the welfare of others is a side note and bears little relevance as important as the condition the individual is left in.
Utilitarianism focuses on the greater good rather than individual good. Essentially, utilitarianism goes after the ethical theory that the most people get the most good. Furthermore, the moral worth of any action is adjudicated by how much good results for all sentient beings. That’s to say dogs and cats and bears aren’t included in the judgement of good.
So, now remember that previously I said most advantageous to the most people. If some of them are disadvantaged, then that’s alright. 51% is just as ethically good as 99% receiving good outcomes.The other thing about thing about utilitarianism that has to be acknowledged is that it seeks to maximize good by minimizing harm to as many people as possible. By contrast between the two theories, egoism seeks to maximize good in individual outcome.
In utilitarianism, individual action is absolutely judged by the number, or greater percent, of the whole sentient creation (as is stated in the book) benefits from the action as opposed to how many of the same group might be harmed. Advocates would say that utilitarianism’s outcome rather than intent is the greater sum. Alternatively, opponents of utilitarianism would say that following the interest of the numerically greater good might very well result in grievous disadvantage, or harm, to an exponentially large number of sentient creatures.
The dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are a perfect example of this opposition. The overarching difference between the two theories is the ethical value disparate between the individual and others. In utilitarianism, the more ethical action might well be the one that harms the individual, but has the most impact, positively, for the most people.
Essentially, this places importance on the whole vs. the individual. In egoism, the individual action success has more ethical value than all others, therefore, it is almost selfishly ethical to act in one's own self-interest even if it can maybe harm others. The argument goes on as to who’s right… but in the end, whichever camp one finds themselves in they should assert to being the best at their ethical decision as selfishly as it is for the group.
Suppose a machine has been developed: Anyone who enters this machine will be guaranteed the maximum amount of physical pleasure for the remainder of his or her life.Unfortunately, the machine only works by a mechanism that disables one’s rational thought, and the entry is permanent.
According to Mill’s view of human nature, not many people would enter the machine.Using textual references, explain why this is so. The pleasure machine, derived from lower swine pleasures, could not be considered as able to contrive maximum physical pleasure. Notably, the pleasure machine is simply pleasure and freedom from pain and only a thing that is desirable as an end; and that all desirable things are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.
Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality. This world is not deeper or more important that one’s own imagination could contrive. There is no fulfilling transcendence or any deeper form of reality, but one could simulate one on a much lesser level. Many people want to leave themselves open to contact and to plunging into a deeper sense of significance, much like some religions consider transcendence the pinnacle of belief and being. This would seemingly answer some questions people have over the use of psychotropic drugs, that some see as another form of locally available pleasure machines. While others see this as a means of an available means of deeper reality. Some also view this as an equivalent surrender to the pleasure machine, while others still, perceive it as one of the main reasons not to partake of the machine (more simply stated as the junkies and the saviors).
Since the experience machine doesn't necessarily meet expectations to be a certain way, picture an experience machine that transforms us into whatever sort of person we'd like to be (compatible with use staying ourselves). I agree completely with Mill; surely someone would not use the experience machine to become as one would wish and plug into the experience machine. You can do that all by yourself by living your life differently!assigned to Tania Melchor, Doug Merrill,Lynn Morgan, andRachel Parker17.
Mill claims, “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility.” Explain why he would claim this. In the Berean bible, in the book of Matthew, Jesus commanded “In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.” This is where the “Golden Rule” stems from. Mill believes that utilitarianism is in fact the essence of why this is a very important rule. Happiness is good because happiness is all we want. But my happiness isn’t any more important than your happiness. We should then also give happiness to others rather than being selfishly self-centered and looking after our own happiness.
Unfortunately, all people aren’t this way, but if everyone would do that, then personal happiness would also be fulfilled. Mill concludes that this is a means of making the nearest approach to this ideal, utility would enjoin, first that laws and social arrangements should place the happiness or (as, speaking practically, it may be called) the interest of every individual as nearly as possible in harmony with the interest of the whole. Mill goes further to advocate that education and opinion should work together to instruct the association of this universal happiness and whole good and greater thinking, beyond oneself. assigned to Tania Melchor, Doug Merrill, Lynn Morgan, and Wade Roit24.