Theory of Ethical Egoism
According to the theory of ethical egoism, a person is only tasked with a duty of ensuring that he or she gets to satisfy his or her feelings and interest. Under this category, it is maintained that as long as a person achieves his or her self-interests, what happens around them or as a result of his or her actions does not count. Therefore, under the ethical egoism theory, the morality of an action is determined by its ability to fulfil the desires of the performers. In this case, the victims are not considered as they are not part of the results. The theory interconnects with Plato’s power of appearance which is also self-centered (Jones, Felps and Bigley, 2007).
Appearance and Morality
The appearance of a person is a factor that cannot be ignored when someone is trying to determine the personality of an individual. In such a case, the people who judge each other on appearance fail to consider the fact that people may seem to be gentle on the outside but with a questionable personality. In this case, the person who is judging the other has failed to identify the morally right action that can be used to classify an individual as either bad or good. The mind unconsciously builds a picture of the character of a person based on the outward appearance. On the other hand, the art of measurement is dependent on the determination of the acts of a person (McCarthy, 2003). Through actions, an individual’s character can be quantified and his or her real personality determined. However, the factor that ethical egoism fails to concentrate only on the performer of an action and not those who are affected by them makes the theory inadequate. A morally right action is one which is performed to benefit all the people. There is no reason to classify the performances of an individual as right yet he or she is the only one who benefits from the act while the others suffer.
Utilitarianism and Morality
Utilitarianism is a theory that focuses on the outcomes of an action. According to this theory, something or an act is considered morally right if it brings happiness to the general public as well as the participants. Some people have condemned this theory stating that it is too demanding. However, utilitarianism concentrates on the well-being of the community at large. The theory states that if an action gives joy to people or is done for the benefits of all the individuals surrounding the performer, then it is right. In the case of Jehovah’s Witness, they stick to the fact that exchange of blood is wrong (McCarthy, 2003). Whereas this may be true, the intention of doing the act must be put into consideration. Blood transfusion has always been done to help in saving the lives of people. Such an act brings happiness to the family of the patients and therefore it should not be considered wrong. In such a case, utilitarianism should be able to help people to determine if the act is permissible despite being considered wrong by other people or religions (Jones, Felps and Bigley, 2007). According to the conception by Mill, the right to liberty is entirely dependent on what an individual considers right to do. On the other hand, Jehovah’s Witnesses should not be condemned according to the Mill’s concept regarding the right to liberty. There is no obligation that binds them to donate blood to other people. So long as an individual is not ready to go against his or her body’s integrity, then such a person must be allowed to determine his or her own conduct.
The Theory of Principlism
The theory of Principlism is based on four pillars. They include beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice and autonomy. Based on these principles, a person is allowed to do what he or she considers right. For example, in the case of the wedding cake, Jack Phillips who refused to serve David Mullins and Charlie Craig just exercised the right of liberty. As the owner of the shop, he is free to choose who he should offer services. Besides, the two gay couples had other options such as going to other shop owners who are okay with their relationship (Jones, Felps and Bigley, 2007). Jack’s refusal to offer services to the couples did them no harm as he just expressed his discontentment with the manner in which family affairs had changed. He acted based on his moral view of marriage and family. However, on the other hand, the action of Jack Phillips was against justice. According to the laws governing the interaction between people, discrimination is an offence. The decision by the shop owner to deny the two couples his services is considered as discrimination (McCarthy, 2003). Therefore, Jack Phillips had a responsibility to serve the couple with the cake of their choice irrespective of what occasion it was meant for. The marriage between the two was their own choice and was not going to affect Jack in any way.
In conclusion, there are some theories that focus on the moral obligation that a person has towards the society. In such a case, the individual in question is allowed to act according to what he or she feels will benefit the whole community. One such theory is Principlism which focuses on a collective obligation of a person towards a group of people. Ethical egoism has also emerged with several gaps regarding the rights of the people in a society. The theory disregards the welfare of the other members of the society and only concentrates on the success of the individual who performs the act.
References
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.
McCarthy, J. (2003). Principlism or narrative ethics: must we choose between them?. Medical Humanities, 29(2), 65-71.
