Utilitarianism can be described as a moral look and defined by consequentialism. It is an ethical theory which states that maximization of utility results in the best action. The utility can be described in different ways, and it mostly terms the well-being of the human beings. According to Jeremy Bentham, who is the founder of utilitarianism, the utility is the addition of all pressure resulting from an action; deduct the suffering of an individual involved in an action (Brian, 1957). The consequences of the action can either be good or bad, and utilitarianism insists of equality interests. Both Bentham and Mills support the theory since they view it as an improvement of human life and factors that affect it.
According to Mills, utilitarianism is used to justify the foundation of morals. It is a principle which reasons out that action are right and are found in proportions since they promote the overall happiness of the human beings. Therefore, the focus of Mills is in the results of actions and not on the ethical nor rights sentiments. Bentham introduced the story of the theory of the human nature which is an explanation of the utilitarianism formulation. In the theory, Bentham states that human beings are unrelentingly driven by their narrow self-interest. The human beings have the desire of perfection and sympathy is a factor which is possessed by human nature. Mills, however, believes that people have the chance of improvement (Ayn, 1964). Through the definitions and views by both Mills and Bentham, the utilitarianism theory can be applied to social welfare economics, ethics of production, avoiding external risk to the human beings and international poverty crisis.
Deontological ethics can be described as the normative ethical position which rules over the morality of an action and it is founded on rules. It is compared to obligation or duty which is based on ethics. Deontological ethics are in most cases contrasted to the consequentialist ethics. The deontological theory states that action is more important than the consequences (Bernard, 1973).
The teleological approach is used to explain the moral value of an act and its intrinsic value. It is the value of something despite the consequences and causes of something. Instructive can either be good or evil. An intrinsic good is that which is valuable for its purposes such as knowledge and pleasure while intrinsic evil is something which should be avoided such as ignorance or pain.
According to teleologists, the good of something is promoted for different views. There is ethical egoism which explains there are people who promote their own interests before other people interests. Utilitarianism is thus used to explain the balance between evil and good in the world. The nature of good which is produced by different people is viewed differently. There are those values and things which are considered moral while others are considered nonmoral. Things such as beauty and knowledge are considered as nonmoral since they erode the moral values of people. Knowledge, for example, people learn different new things, and they put them into practice thus forgetting the old moral ways. People forgetting their past and practicing foreign things is what is recognized as nonmoral. Beauty, on the other hand, makes people abandon their practices and tries new things such as changing their skin color. It is nonmoral since they embrace new things which are not associated with the moral values such as respecting their culture, background, race and ethnicity (Bernard, 1973).
In Kant ethics, Categorical Imperative explains the deontological moral philosophy, and it can be referred to like the methods of assessing incentives for an act. Kant believed that individuals occupy a superior place in formation and the act of being moral can be summarized as being imperative, the reason why an idea is commanded and the derivation of all obligations and duties. There are individuals who hope to attain something at the end of it. A human being, for instance, hopes to achieve some things while they are carrying out something. Categorical imperative explains a formulation where no unconditional requirements and it is absolute to all circumstances and the end result justifies the action. The nature of this concept can be described as freedom and autonomy. According to Kant, people are rationally self-conscious when they possess the freedom of choice (Richard, 1984).
The concept can be explained in the equality and human rights concepts. People are supposed to be free to choose whatever they want. The freedom determines the moral values person chooses to carry out. Freedom and autonomy at times interfere with morality since a person can choose something such as pursuing knowledge which might result in nonmoral activities.
Ethical Egoism
It can be described as normative ethics which reasons out that moral agents are required to act to their own self-interests. The theory states that those activities which a person engages in are ethically right since the consequences can be considered ethical. Egoism contrasts with utilitarianism which says that a normal agent concentrates on achieving the well-being of all people and not an individual, though beneficial. Egoism does not need the agents of morality so that it can harm the well-being and interests of the others when deciding on the moral acts, for instance, when the individual interest might be beneficial, accidentally detrimental or neutral (Brian, 1957).
According to Medlin, ethical egoism is false since it fails the necessary condition of morality, which is known to guide the actions of an individual. He states that the theory encourages people to do inconsistence things which will be founded on the incompatible desires. Medlin argues that the morality principles should be categorical and universal; the egoist desires of an individual requires to be universalized so that they can be over everyone else; the desires of others should at times be made to come to the top over the morality agent, and therefore incompatible results are experienced due to the conflict which is seen. I do not agree with Medlin on him disagreeing with the egoism theory.
The egoism theory states that an individual is guided by the moral obligation of promoting the best balance between evil and good. Medlin is, therefore, wrong since he thinks that egoism theory is not guided by moral requirements. It is the interest of the individual which determines what is morally correct or wrong. People determine what benefits them first as long as it does not have any negative effects on the other people. Prudence is not encouraged in the ethical egoism since it is considered immoral (Richard, 1984). Honesty should be promoted as it promoted decency in the society, where people do things for the benefit of other people.
In conclusion, morality is a system which determines what is right and what is wrong while ethics is the study of morality. People in life need to be guided by various ethics, and they different people have different beliefs on what is right and what is wrong. There are philosophers who came up with various approaches to explain the difference between believe and actions of people on what are right or wrong. These theories such as utilitarianism and egoism have explained the different behavior of people and if they can be considered correct or wrong (Ayn, 1964). Through the theories differ with each other, they still guide the behavior of people such as acting to one’s interest, but the results are positive; thus the action being ethical. There are those individuals who are self-centered and do not even concentrate on the well-being of others, and their actions are unethical. Morality is supposed to guide the actions of people despite gaining knowledge from other sources which might erode their behavior. It is, therefore, necessary for human beings to know how to act morally since they have been given the opportunity to decide freely on what to do. However, factors such as beauty and knowledge should not influence the moral behaviors of people.
References
Ayn,. R (1964), Excerpts from The virtue of selfishness, 16-17, 31-34. New York: The NewAmerican Library.
Brian. M (1957), Ultimate principles and ethical egoism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy35: 111-118.
Bernard, W(1973), A critique of utilitarianism. In Utilitarianism: For and against, ed. J. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams, 77-118. London: Cambridge University Press.
Richard. T (1984), Kantian morality. In Good and evil: A new direction, 102-115. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
