Ethical Egoism And Virtue Ethics Philosophy Essay

Ethical Egoism minds the interests which one takes within them but not ones wishes. Self interest is necessary in the sense that, it is not good to always better oneself but just to be true to you. The things that somebody commits towards their satisfaction should not negatively affect the third person. My support for Ethical Egoism is that one does basically what is right to him/her, but in beneficial or neutral senses only when turns out to what others around might not gain. There are three formulations of ethical Egoism universal, individual and personal. Individual Ethical Egoist argues that all individuals ought to do what benefits them. Personal ethical egoist says that some one ought to act by his/her own self interest, only that he makes no claim concerning what any body else supposed to do. The universal ethical egoist claims that everybody is ought to act in means that are in their own interest. I believe that it is quite good to move out and earn then get what you want, improve yourself and just be happy. On the notion of invading other person’s happiness I decline on that.

Virtue ethics illustrates the character of moral agent as the steering for the ethical behavior, rather than consequentialism or deontology which derives wrongness or rightness as the result of the act but not the character. For example in the case involving an individual making a lie, a virtue ethicist focuses less on lying an d instead considers the decision to tell a lie or even not tell the lie mentioned pertaining moral behavior and ones character. Thus lying will be handled on case-by-case basis depending on factors like group benefit, personal benefit and the lie intentions (that is whether they were malevolent or benevolent). Virtue ethicist emphasizes on the grounds that helping others is charitable or benevolent. Virtue ethics is both new and old approach to ethics. It was regarded as to be emphasizing on a few interesting points like the character and motives of moral agents that utilitarian and deontologists could incorporate in to their approaches.

Deontological theories are duty based; morality based on deontologists involves the fulfillment of duties and moral obligations. According to the deontological tradition, duties involve absolute moral rules obeying. Thus for a human being to uphold a law or rule they are required morally to do or not to do certain activities/acts. The wrongness or rightness of moral rule is independent determined of how pleasure or happiness was distributed as the outcome of not abiding or abiding by the rule.

In real life situations our duties towards others doesn’t necessarily decrease pain or increase pleasure. In America around nineteenth-century the anti-slavery movement members had views that slavery was wrong, despite the fact that slave holders benefited from it economically. The Deontologist views are that if American government conducts cost benefit analysis of slavery and directs it made more pleasure in community than pain, still it must be wrong.

An extreme utilitarian argues that rules are simply rules we use to avoid figuring possible judgments of our actions. Utilitariasm remarkably have the tendency of haunting those of us who finds it difficult to believe in it. It is our feeling forever that it is ought to be right, though our insisting of it being wrong. Something steers us towards utilitarianism, consequentialism is what makes utilitarianism radically wrong.

Self control is the ability to control ones behavior, emotions and desires in order gain on a latter date. Self control is related to the pressure subjected to an individual. The person might be in good pressure; when a person is in a competitive, non-prejudicial and non-judgmental environment, the person may desire to feel like those surrounding him. An individual may become inspired and motivated and thus gains self control. When an individual experiences bad pressure he/she is in prejudicial and judgmental environment and there lacks competition, the individual may become unmotivated and depressed thus losing the self control. When No Pressure the person is free, can do what may feel, there is no competition thus self control depends on the feelings of the individual. An individual might happen to be motivated or less motivated depending on the urgency of the undertakings.

The importance of self control triggers choosing, and then persevere with behavior, thought and actions which results to success and improvements. It gives the inner strength and power to overcoming, addictions, laziness procrastination thus following through whatever you do. Self control leads to self esteem, self confidence and inner strength, also to happiness and satisfaction.

Low self control people are unable to delay gratification, for people focus is on the present. The seven year old boy in Australia was to be crowned a king of low self esteem. Early one morning, the boy secretly went in the house of the reptiles and began killing them. The boy then took a lizard and killed it and mounted on the fence to give it to others as food. The theory of low self-control is depicted by this behavior. The seven year kid suggested that the beginning of such behavior is early. The action of the boy was without any thought about the outcomes his behavior would bring. The security cameras featured him smiling while killing the animals. The boy never showed a sense of empathy for the zoo neither the animals keepers taking lots of risks. The boy not only managed to dive past the security system but still climbed over the fence to have a closer look at the crocodile meantime endangering his little flesh.

The boy’s behavior proposes that his parents are particularly ineffective. The parents of great concern can not allow the little young to go missing for such extended period of time without eyeing them. According to low-self esteem theory there were higher expectations about the boy continuing with such low self-control behaviors from childhood then to adolescence and then into adulthood probably tuning from harming animals to harming people. Most likely the boy won’t be feeding people to crocodiles.

Self control theory predictions can be a lengthy criminal record. Sociologists made this approach as a criminal behavior; psychologists have been studying development of similar theories for several years just before self control theory. Immediate gratification, impulsivity, risk-taking are very well established concepts in the bases of psychological accounts of deviance and crime.

Low self-control manifests in a quite different ways. People showing low self-control can not delay gratification; they do such simply because they are focused on the present. Is just like they want it now, thus it results to people of low self control acting impulsively.