The theory of ethical egoism maintains that the only task a person has is to make him or herself happy. The individual only has a moral duty towards him or herself and the interests that benefits him or her. In such a scenario, the happenings to the other people do not hold any ground in the actions of an individual. Ethical egoism promotes selfishness where the needs of the performer of an act come first in everything (Jones, Felps and Bigley, 2007). So long as an individual realizes his or her goals, then he or she should not worry about happens to the other people. The morality of ethical egoism is in the ability of an individual to meet the basic needs and fulfill his or her aims. Victims of an act performed by a person in search of self-fulfillment are not given priority or considered at all in ethical egoism. The victims are not part of the results or the reasons for performing an act. The connection between ethical egoism and Plato’s power of appearance is that both principles are centered on a given individual. Both concentrate on the wellbeing of an individual instead of the whole community.
During the process of determining the personality of an individual, his or her appearance matters a lot. The appearance of a person gives an outward insight into the behavior and conduct of the individual in question. The judgment made regarding a person based on their outward appearance fails to meet the threshold for determining the personality of such an individual. The morally right way of determining the personality of a person is through interaction and consideration of the acts and behaviors of the individual in question. The practice is what is promoted by the principle of the Art of Measurement. According to this principle, the personality of a person can only be determined by considering the actions he or she performs. Such actions may include the interaction between a person and the other members of the community.
Rachel maintains that in as much as the principle of ethical egoism promotes selfishness, it does not encourage foolishness. The reality of the argument can be found regarding the case of the five young boys from Florida who filmed a drowning (Broad, 2014). Their action seemed morally wrong especially due to the fact that they did not even bother calling for help. However, on the other hand, it must be realized that it was right for the boys not to attempt to help the man. In support of that, it must be noted that by going into the water, the boys would have put their life at risk. In the video, it is even reported that one of them tried to warn the man against his actions. Therefore, they had no moral duty of dictating the events that occurred. The action was not part of their self-interest.
The principle of utilitarianism concentrates on the effects of an action. The theory does not only focus on the performer of the act but the other members of the society as well. The morality of an act according to this principle is based on the wellbeing of all the community members. An action is only considered right when it benefits all the concerned members. In such cases, the performer of the act must consider the impacts of his or her intended action on the community surrounding him or her.
Regarding Beauchamp (Major Ethical, 23), respect for the autonomy of people must be upheld at all times and in all situations. In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses refusal of blood transfusion, it must be noted that they are at liberty to do so. Despite being sick, a patient has the right to decide what should be done to him or her and the treatments to receive (Beauchamp, 2007). Therefore, Jehovah’s Witnesses are bound by the duty they have towards their own body and medical needs.
The action of Jehovah’s Witnesses is further promoted by Mill’s right to liberty. The principle is based on the considerations of the affected individual. There is no legal legislation that forces a person to donate blood to other people. Therefore, people are at liberty to choose what do in different situations and circumstances. The integrity of the body of a person is his or her own duty and choice. The beliefs of such a person are likely to guide his or her conduct.
The foundation of the theory of Priciplism is based on Ross’s prima facie duties. Whenever an action does not adversely affect another duty which has stronger values, then it is considered right and moral. There are four pillars that guide the theory. The pillars are autonomy, beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence. Every individual in the society has a responsibility of performing what he or she considers right and benefiting (Beauchamp, 2016). The person is not under any obligation to go against his or her belief to satisfy the interest of the other members of the society. Regarding the case presented to the court about a wedding cake, Mr. Jack Phillips who is the accused has no fault at all. His decision not to sell his cake to the gay couple is based on his moral beliefs. Charlie Craig and David Mullins who are the couples, in this case, had many other options. In addition to that, their wedding cannot be considered stronger than the moral belief of Mr. Phillips. Therefore, the action by Jack Phillips is permissible even though it appears discriminative and wrong to some people.
According to Rawls, the world of equal liberty provide equivalent opportunities to all the members of the society. In such situations, everybody is responsible and answerable for their actions. An act performed out of the goodwill for others often have positive impacts. Such acts are done perfectly than when one acts out of a moral obligation. The rules which emphasize on equal liberties provide justice to all members of the community. The situation is different with the one provided by the principle of utility which emphasizes on the need for a person to act in a way that benefits the whole community. Those acts performed by people out of will help in reducing cases of negativity and injuries in their performers (Broad, 2014). Right to equal liberty provides people with an opportunity of doing voluntary work and giving full support to those in need. Whenever a person realizes that he or she is fully responsible for his or her wellbeing, the individual is forced to find proper ways of coexisting with others. Therefore, all the natural duties that a person has towards the other people in the community should be voluntary according to Rawls. All the help given to an individual must be given in good faith and sound belief.
Rawls’ argument about the world of mutual aid is contrary to that of maximal as it is for the wellbeing of the society. In the principle of mutual aid, every member of the community has a responsibility towards each other. Rawls maintains that if performing a duty or an act cannot risk the life the performer, then it is always right to help those in need. Mutual aid has a positive duty where it requires members of the community to perform beneficial acts to the people in the community (Broad, 2014). However, the principle also warns people against doing some things that are morally wrong in order to help another person. Therefore, the principle mostly focuses on the positive acts performed towards people in the society. Rawls states that natural duties should be performed without considering the factor of voluntary acts. Such acts are not connected to the social practices of a community. Therefore, it is a natural duty of the people not be show cruelty towards the other individuals in the community. Even without commitments to such actions, an individual is expected to help those in need.
Unlike the principle of mutual aid, Mill’s opinion of maximal also referred to as the right to liberty maintains that every individual has a responsibility to him or herself. The principle maintains that the need to help is not a responsibility but out of goodwill (Broad, 2014). A person is allowed to choose either to help or not. Just like the case of the five boys from Florida, they were not required by any law to help. Helping the drowning man was a personal choice which they had to make. Since they chose not to help, it was their right to liberty even though it is not morally right to live the man to die.
Reference
Beauchamp, T. L. (2007). The ‘four principles’ approach to health care ethics. Principles of health care ethics, 3-10.
Beauchamp, T. L. (2016). Principlism in Bioethics. In Bioethical Decision Making and Argumentation (pp. 1-16). Springer International Publishing.
Broad, C. D. (2014). Five types of ethical theory (Vol. 2). Routledge.
Jones, T. M., Felps, W., " Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137-155.
