Utilitarianism postulates that a moral act should be that which aims to produce a good result for all in the society. Borrowing from the utility principle, a moral good is achieved by having a rational balance between a something which is not moral but is good that having something which is not moral but evil (Mill 2006). According to utilitarians, an act is morally good when it produces the greatest margin of good course but for all in the society. This means that utilitarianism seeks to ensure the general good than individual good. To this effect, every moral decision at an individual level should not concentrate on what such acts results into for the individual, but for the society. Hence, according to utilitarianism, an ethical decision is that which gives the greatest achievable positive outcome to the society, but that decision is made at an individual level (Mill, 2006).
Benthem and John Stuart Mill support Utilitarianism because ethical decisions are generally as a result of an individual making a decision in consideration of its ultimate effect to the society. An act is right when it tends to result into happiness and hence pleasure and is wrong when it tends to produce the negative (Read, 2007). If our moral decisions of right are wrong are then aligned towards achieving a general good as postulated by utilitarianism, then utilitarianism is good for our moral decision making.
As postulated by Immanuel Kant, deontological ethics judge an action of what is right or wrong depending on some set rules or standards upon which such acts are judged (Broad, 2014). This is also referred to as a rule based ethics. These rules hence make obligations or delegate duties to and individual. There two different theories to deontological ethics, act deontology does to provide any standards of what is wrong or what is right. If a rational human being is aware of the truth existing in a situation, then a moral decision will come out from mere intuition. That is to say that the standard of what is right or wrong entirely depends on a rational individual’s rational insight. That is to say that the general moral standards set forth are just but as a result of replicating what we judged as morally right in previous events, but not that there must be a standard for moral judgement that really exists.
Rule deontology on the other hand postulates that there are some moral standards that exist (Broad, 2014). These are the rules that define our moral judgements of rights and wrongs, however, such rules are not sufficient in themselves hence, they are not complete to solely determine what is morally right or wrong. The role of categorical imperative helps determine what is necessary hence motivates what should be considered as a moral rule (Broad, 2014). If such a necessity is established, then it becomes binding to the group or society that is to use it as a rule of judging what is morally right or wrong. Kant’s theories both tend to create obligations that define what is expected so that an action can be judged as either right or wrong. These obligations tend to make ethics be like law. However, act deontology is plausible since it does not create fixed standards to morality, a standard to morality does not make it a morally right standard to observe hence leaving such standards to be as a result of intuition is plausible, i.e. act deontology (Williams, 2011).
Ethical egoism postulates that an individual should consider an act or decision moral if it pursues his or her own interest (Broad, 2014). In complete contrast to utilitarianism, ethical egoism simply requires us to be prudent and hence an ethical egoist should be honest as to what he or she thinks will benefit them. It also hold that to sacrifice individual interest so as to pursue those of others would only mean that in the process, the individual sacrificing their interest also benefits in equal measures as the rest. Rand supports ethical egoism arguing that an individual is most familiar with themselves than with others (Broad, 2014), therefore, it would be hypocritical to try advance other people’s interests if we haven’t pursued our own, with little knowledge of the interest of others, an attempt to pursue such interests would sometimes turn out to be detrimental that good, hence, unethical. Rand also argues that it is just prudent to mind our own business and leave others to mind about their own affairs. Even though ethical egoism would strike one at first, it is good to consider for example that an individual in a bid to pursue their own interest would not want a negative consequence on them, i.e. if one steals, then it would not be in their own interests that they are beaten for such actions hence it would not be in their self’s best interests to steal (Williams, 2011), same as to engage in violence because the results of such a decision would ultimately harm them.
Ethical egoism would create a chaotic society, for example there would be too much theft and violence in the society as individuals tend to advance their own interests. Even though Rand also argues that fighting and violence would also be to ones’ self-interests, Rand argues that egoism is not good for justice. For example, in a case where judge has to decide a case between a plaintiff and a defendant, then ethical egoism that requires the judge to advance their own interests may not produce justice. According to Madlin, ethical egoism seems to encourage a society to be so careless about the results of their actions (Williams, 2011) so long as they have achieve their own interests following an ethical decision which they have made pursuing their own interests. Ethical egoism therefore does not consider the practicality of its application but rather, focuses more on its theoretical context.
References
Mill, J. S. (2006). Utilitarianism. ReadHowYouWant. com.
Williams, B. (2011). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis.
Broad, C. D. (2014). Five types of ethical theory (Vol. 2). Routledge.
