Standards for Moral Conduct in Criminal Justice
Standards for Moral Conduct in Criminal Justice
As you have learned throughout this course, the criminal justice field demands moral conduct from all participants. In your Final Paper, you will create a set of core, ethical beliefs and moral requirements for people engaged in your line of work, or your intended line of work. Drawing from Chapters 5 and 15 in your textbook, along with the eight additional sources you research to support your opinions, formulate your paper based solely upon scholarly sources. In your paper,
- Compile a comprehensive job description for your line of work or intended line of work;
- Identify all of the stakeholders related to the position;
- Describe at least three practical work scenarios where ethical decision making and moral action must be taken in the position;
- Evaluate the pros and cons of two ethical theories applicable to the work scenarios you chose;
- Create your own code of ethics for the position and the foundational sources for your code;
- Design a best-practices checklist for your chosen position; and
- Propose how your code of ethics will positively impact all stakeholders to the position.
The Final Paper
- Must be eight double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.).
- Must include a separate title page with the following:
- Title of paper
- Student’s name
- Course name and number
- Instructor’s name
- Date submitted
- Must use at least eight scholarly sources in addition to the course text.
- Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
- Must include a separate references page that is formatted5 Egoism, Pleasure, and Indifference
This chapter will present three ethical theories—namely, ethical egoism, hedonism, and Stoicism. Of the three, only Stoicism has any present-day following in the field of moral philosophy (e.g., see Becker 1998).
15.1 Stoicism
In its time, particularly after the death of Alexander the Great, Stoicism was a very influential ethical philosophy. It dominated Roman thinking about moral philosophy until Christianity replaced it. Stoicism, as a philosophy, has been refined and developed over time from its initiation by Zeno (3rd century BCE), who is supposed to have lectured from a porch called a stoa, from which Stoicism derives its name.
It is important to appreciate Greek history to understand how Stoicism developed. In summary, Phillip, the father of Alexander the Great, placed Greece under Macedonian rule, ending the regime of the Greek city-states (Prior 1991: 194–197). During his life, Alexander the Great extended the Macedonian empire and began the process that dispersed Greek language and civilization throughout the Mediterranean. The period of transition from Greek city-states to an empire is known as the Hellenistic period. These changes to Greek civilization were influential because Greek philosophy became widely available throughout the region. The city-states were replaced by imperial rule. This change seemed to make much of the work of Plato and Aristotle on ethics and politics obsolete because now philosophers began to see themselves as part of a single enterprise rather than as representing the individual city-states.
The classical Greek philosophers shaped their view of virtue and the good life from the community of small city-states, but this form of social organization no longer existed. Questions were now asked about how virtue would apply in this new age. It was thought that the new social structure required a new philosophy. In addition, much of the daily activity of a citizen in classical Athens had changed with the onset of imperial rule. The political and social life of the city continued, but the close relationships between individuals as well as the social life of the city had changed. In response to these dislocations, new religions arose in an attempt to give individuals a new sense of citizenship. As well, some turned to philosophy instead of religion, and this led to the development of the schools of Epicureanism and Stoicism.
The Stoics reacted to the collapse of the closed social system of the city-states by offering advice to individuals in what for them was a crumbling world. Although Stoicism is a complex moral theory, the basic principle advocated by Stoics is that one should learn to be indifferent to external differences. Many of the writings of the early and later Stoics have disappeared, but among those remaining are the writings of Epictetus, who began life as a Roman slave. He advocated a philosophy of indifference, believing that this practice would constitute progress for the individual. In the early period, Zeno was succeeded as head of the Stoic school by Cleanthes and later by Chrysippus (Prior 1991: 208). The best-known Stoic philosophers today are the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, both of whom focused on the presentation of Stoicism in a popular form.
The Stoics assumed that good or evil depends on the self, and although others have power over events that may affect you, if you can nevertheless be indifferent to those events, others will not be able to exercise power over you. Epictetus writes,
All existing things are either in our power or not in our power. In our power are thought, impulse, will to get and will to avoid, and, in a word, everything which is our own doing. Things not in our power include the body, property, reputation, office, and, in a word, everything which is not our own doing. (in Prior 1991: 209)
He further explains, “Virtue resides in the will—only the will is good or bad.” Therefore, if one has a good will, achieved by remaining indifferent to external events, external events will not destroy one’s character, and one will be a free person, independent of the world. In other words, for Stoics, virtue consists of learning to accept whatever happens. Epictetus urged a person to compel or force his or her will to conform to events and to try not to force events to conform to his or her will. This reflects the Stoic teaching about living life in accordance with nature (Prior 1991: 211); that is, we should live in accordance with our own human nature, and we should live consistently with the nature of the universe of which we are a part. Since our knowledge is inherently limited, we ought to follow the guidance of our own nature, but if things turn out other than we expect, we should accept them as if they turned out for the best (Sharples 1996: 101).
The ethics of the Stoics should be understood in the context of their belief in predestination —that is, all that happens in the world is fixed according to some preconceived divine plan, and nothing happens by chance (Prior 1991: 209). Stoics believed that whatever happened had a rational explanation and was for the best. For them, virtue is achieved through a will that operates in accordance with the happenings of nature. Appreciating and accepting that events have been fated allows one to avoid frustration and despair in trying to alter those events, and, conversely, it is the person who struggles to change events who is not free. Similarly, death should not be considered a bad thing because it has been predestined by God and therefore must be considered good. The aim is to achieve a state of being where one is not susceptible to passion or emotion (p. 212). One of the main effects of Stoicism is that it places the onus for becoming good or bad directly on the individual, in the sense that cultivating the appropriate frame of mind will lead to virtue. Virtue alone is good. According to Stoics, our health and wealth are not to be taken into account, and we ought to be indifferent to them (Sharples 1996: 102).
The Stoics believed in a commitment to serving the public. This distinguishes Stoicism from hedonism because the latter advocates a withdrawal from public life and living with a circle of like-minded friends (Sharples 1996: 87). The Romans, with their tradition of public service, admired this aspect of the Stoic philosophy (Prior 1991: 214). The goal of the Stoic philosophy is, therefore, a life of complete rationality and of developing oneself so that one remains invulnerable to passion and emotion. The Stoics depicted the person who lived such a life as a “sage” and believed that philosophy was the means of achieving this life. Stoicism is a philosophy that advocates acceptance of life and events and is pessimistic in tone. A good example of this detached attitude appears in the following passage from Epictetus:
When you go to visit some great man, prepare your mind by thinking that you will not find him in, that you will be shut out, that the doors will be slammed in your face, and that he will pay no heed to you. And if in spite of all this you find it fitting for you to go, go and bear what happens and never say to yourself “it was not worth all this”; for that shows a vulgar mind and one at odds with outward things. (in Prior 1991: 219)
In contrasting Stoicism and hedonism, William Prior (1991) points out that both assist in providing a means for dealing with events beyond our control. The Stoics explain that certain things may not be within our power, and the strength of both philosophies is that they teach us “how to bear with dignity those events which truly are beyond our control” (p. 223). In addition, both Stoics and hedonists would agree that one cannot become just or courageous if one behaves in an unjust or cowardly manner (Sharples 1996: 82). In other words, character cannot be separated from action.
15.2 Hedonism
Traditionally, hedonism has been expressed as the view that “pleasure alone is intrinsically good,” “pleasure is the only thing worth seeking for its own sake,” and “pleasure is the good” (Feldman 1997: 80). Hedonism is the doctrine that pleasure is the sole good. The foremost exponent of hedonism was the Greek philosopher Epicurus (see the “Epicurus” Closer Look box). His name appears in the form of the English words epicure and epicurean, meaning a person whose main enjoyment is derived from exotic and carefully prepared food and wine. In fact, this connotation is far removed from the philosophy expounded by Epicurus himself. He advocated living moderately yet pleasurably and considered pleasure to be the good for which humans aim. Nevertheless, he also appreciated that pursuit of pleasure might itself result in pain (Prior 1991: 200). For example, if, in seeking pleasure, individuals drink to excess, they will suffer headaches and stomachaches. Therefore, in Epicurus’s view, the proper way to live is to live “pleasantly” and at the same time not suffer any of the undesirable effects of that pleasant living. Epicurus stated that the aim of human existence was “health of the body and tranquility of mind” (p. 201). He did not endorse a life of endless pleasure or sensuality because by pleasure he meant “the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul.” Tranquility is attained by philosophical understanding and through practical wisdom. The former teaches that death should not be feared and the latter advocates living virtuously (p. 203).
There are two forms of hedonism—psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism. The psychological form suggests that people pursue pleasure and only pleasure in their lives and that all their activities are directed toward achieving pleasure and avoiding pain (Feldman 1997: 109). Ethical hedonism is the view that not only do people seek pleasure, but they also ought to seek pleasure because pleasure alone is good. According to psychological hedonism, every action is motivated by a search for pleasure, whereas ethical hedonism goes one step further, seeing the pursuit of pleasure as normative. Hedonism in both its forms can be criticized for attempting to provide a single explanation for every human act. In other words, in psychological hedonism every act is supposedly motivated by a desire for pleasure.
According to proponents of ethical hedonism, the question of how one ought to live is answered by the contention that the good life consists of a life of pleasure and that a person ought to act in such a way as to acquire pleasure. As already noted, Epicurus attempted to find pleasures that did not produce painful consequences, having recognized that some pleasures might be accompanied by pain or might produce pain. For example, some find that smoking cocaine gives pleasure, but it will also produce severe adverse physical and mental effects if continued beyond a certain point.
In practice, it seems difficult to separate pleasure from pain in the way Epicurus advocated. For example, friendship, a pleasure, can be accompanied by depression and sadness at the death of a close friend. It is difficult, therefore, to see how ethical hedonism can function as a guide for behavior in our daily lives because advising a person to seek pleasure is often also advice to seek pain. In addition, although the notion that people ought to conduct themselves in such ways as to acquire pleasure seems reasonable and plausible, it also seems to violate our commonsense views about how we ought to act. Generally, people feel that sometimes it is acceptable to act to gain pleasure, but few would regard this as the sole objective in life. For example, we frequently have to fulfill obligations, even if we receive little or no pleasure in the process.
A Closer Look
Epicurus
Epicurus was born in 341 BCE on the Greek island of Somas, but his father was an Athenian. He moved to Athens and established a school there in 307 BCE called “The Garden” because it met in the garden of his home. Unusually, women and slaves were permitted to become members of the school. Epicurus lived and taught at The Garden until his death in 271 BCE. He is said to have written over 300 scrolls, but only a tiny number have survived. It is thought that many of his works were destroyed because they were considered adverse to Christianity. Epicurus’s main aim was to establish a philosophy concerned with the attainment of happiness. He thought that the main constraint to happiness was the fear and unease caused by religion.
SOURCE: Prior 1991: 198.
15.3 Ethical Egoism
Typically, an egoist is self-centered, inconsiderate, unfeeling, and a pursuer of the good things in life, whatever may be the cost to others. Egoists think only of themselves, and if they think about others at all, it is merely as a means to their own ends. Essentially, egoism involves putting one’s own well-being above that of others (Baier 1991: 197). It argues that the right actions are those that promote self-interest, and the wrong actions are those that detract from self-interest (Hinman 1998: 138). This stands in contrast to most other systems of morality, which recommend that we ought to act unselfishly, that we ought to take other people’s interests into account, and that we should care for, rather than harm, other people (Rachels 1999: 70). Lawrence Hinman (1998) argues that, in fact, egoism does not amount to a moral theory at all.
Psychological Egoism
There are two theories of egoism: psychological egoism and ethical egoism. The former theorizes that all persons are egoists in the sense that our actions are always motivated by our own best interests. Proponents of psychological egoism suspect that altruistic explanations of behavior are superficial and without substance (Rachels 1999: 71). In other words, they contend that when a person’s motives are properly analyzed, although it may seem that he or she is acting unselfishly—for example, by doing volunteer work in a hospital or church or by saving a child from a burning house—his or her actual motives would tell a different story. For example, the hospital volunteer may be making amends for some misdeed in his or her past or may be trying to build a good résumé, and the person saving the child may be motivated by a desire to be recognized as a hero. This approach can be criticized as being based on the assumption that we will never find the real explanation for someone’s behavior until we have discovered an appropriate egotistical motivation (Baier 1991: 199). In other words, a way can always be found to set aside acts of altruism and self-sacrifice and see in them a self-centered motive. However, if one is to interpret all acts in terms of their lack of altruism, one must surely distinguish between acts that are done solely out of selfish motives and those done out of a motive to help others but that also produce feelings of satisfaction and enhance our self-perceptions as “good persons.” Surely, one has more moral worth than the other.
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was a believer in psychological egoism, and he tried to give a more general account of it by listing motives and showing how each could be read as egoistical acts or intentions (Rachels 1999: 72). For example, in relation to the motive of charity, Hobbes concluded that it constituted the pleasure one takes in demonstrating one’s powers; that is, charitable persons confirm to themselves and others that they are more capable than others. Not only can these individuals take care of themselves, but they also have a surplus available for those who are not as accomplished. In demonstrating charity, they are really emphasizing their own superiority.
Another example is pity. Here, Hobbes concluded that the real reason we feel pity for others’ misfortunes is that we are reminded that the same thing might happen to us. As James Rachels notes, psychological egoism appeals to a “certain cynicism in us, a suspicion that people are not nearly as noble as they seem” (1999: 73). As he points out, it is not possible to prove psychological egoism because the theory shows only that it is possible to interpret all motives in an egotistical manner.
Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism claims that promoting one’s own greatest good is always to act in accordance with reason and morality (Baier 1991: 201); that is, everyone ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively (Rachels 1999: 83). Whereas psychological egoism is a theory about how people actually behave, ethical egoism is a theory about how we ought to behave. It says that we have no duty other than to do what is best for ourselves (p. 84). It is important to understand that ethical egoism does not advocate promoting one’s own interests in addition to the interests of others. Rather, it stresses that the only duty we have is to promote our own interest. However, at the same time, ethical egoism does not require us to avoid actions that might help others. Therefore, if a particular act would benefit our own self-interest as well as the interests of others, that act will not be considered contrary to the goals of ethical egoism.
Those who support ethical egoism argue that if we all look after our own interests, it is more likely that we will all be better off. In other words, if we want to do the best for others, we should not act altruistically because, for example, while we are fully aware of our own individual wants and needs, we are not completely aware of others’ needs. This line of reasoning suggests that we should not set out to act altruistically because we are not in a good position to do so. Some also insist that looking out for others intrudes into their privacy and that giving charity degrades others and robs them of dignity (Rachels 1999: 85). Ayn Rand, for example, proposed that ethical egoism is the only philosophy that respects the integrity of human life. Rand argued that altruism is a destructive idea, devaluing the individual (Hinman 1998: 149; Rachels 1999: 86), because it claims that one’s own interests ought to be sacrificed for another’s interests. It is in this sense that altruism does not value the individual. In contrast, Rand suggested that ethical egoism does affirm the value of the individual and is the only moral position to do so.
Rachels (1999) explains that although philosophers have rejected ethical egoism, it is nevertheless a theory that has been returned to again and again. He gives three typical arguments that reject this doctrine. The first is that ethical egoism does not assist in resolving conflicts of interest but rather exacerbates them (p. 91). The second is that it is logically inconsistent, and the third is that ethical egoism is unacceptably arbitrary in the same way that racism is arbitrary (p. 94). Like racism, it advocates dividing people into groups where the interests of one group are considered to count more than the interests of others. This is contrary to the general principle that we can only justify treating people differently when there is a factual difference between them that is relevant and justifies a difference in treatment.
In the same way, ethical egoism contends that we should each divide the world into two categories of people—ourselves and the rest—and that we should regard the interests of the first group as more important than those of the second group. However, this division, and therefore ethical egoism itself, is quite arbitrary because there is no general difference between one’s self and others. An additional difficulty for ethical egoism is suggested by Hinman (1998: 152): While ethical egoists can have acquaintances, it is not clear that they are able to have deep friendships with others because such friendships are usually founded on the basis of a mutual concern for each other’s welfare, and ethical egoism seems to preclude that concern. Hinman also suggests that ethical egoists suffer from moral insensitivity and an unwillingness to help others (p. 154). Compassion and concern for others is completely opposed to self-interest, and therefore these values are prohibited by this philosophy. This means that ethical egoists would respond to issues such as world hunger by claiming that starving people should be helped only when it is in their own self- interest to do so. This seems rather implausible and callous.
15.4 Applying the Theory of Ethical Egoism
Case Study 15.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Banks.9118.18.1/sections/navpoint-134#s9781506326030.i1887) illustrates how ethical egoism can be applied to an ethical dilemma within the criminal justice system.
In resolving what may be an ethical dilemma, Harry will follow the process of resolving an ethical dilemma set out in Chapter 1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Banks.9118.18.1/sections/navpoint- 9#s9781506326030.i920) .
1. Is Harry faced with an ethical dilemma?
Harry is faced with the dilemma of whether to use informal means to reinforce his authority over George or to use the formal inmate disciplinary process.
2. What are the facts and circumstances of the incident?
Harry needs to review in his mind the facts and circumstances.
3. What are the facts relevant to the decision he has to make? What are his own values about the issue, and what are the values of his workplace about such an issue?
The relevant facts are as follows: Harry and George have a history of clashes over Harry’s exercise of his authority. Harry feels he needs to demonstrate to both inmates and other staff that he is always in control, and he sees this as essential for his work as a correctional officer. In his view, those who demonstrate the most power in the prison environment will prevail. Harry has always used formal methods to control George before, but it seems to him that this approach has not changed George’s attitude toward him. Harry wants his coworkers to see that he can control George because this is expected by the prison officer culture, which requires that officers never show leniency toward inmates and that they provide unquestioning support to coworkers, especially in the face of inmate resistance. Harry knows that informal methods are sometimes more effective with inmates than formal processes.
4. What ethical theories does he call to mind to assist him in resolving the dilemma?
In this case, Harry will apply ethical egoism to the dilemma.
5. What are Harry’s available courses of action?
Harry can either follow the formal disciplinary process, or he may use informal methods to punish George.
6. Harry will make his decision after applying, in this case, the ethical egoism approach to each alternative course of action, and he will choose the course of action that is the most ethically appropriate for him under ethical egoism.
A process for assessing an ethical dilemma from an ethical egoism perspective is set out in the “Ethical Egoism Evaluation of Ethical Dilemmas” Closer Look boxes. Applications of these criteria are shown in the “Applying Ethical Egoism” Closer Look box.
Recalling that egoists are self-centered, inconsiderate, unfeeling pursuers of the good things in life, whatever may be the cost to others, and that egoists also put themselves above the well-being of others, it is hard to advocate this approach to ethical decision-making as an ethical approach at all. It contrasts with almost all other systems of morality, which take the view that we ought to act unselfishly, that we ought to take other people’s interests into account, and that we should care for, rather than harm, other people (Rachels 1999: 70).
Case Study 15.1 Giving Your Own Punishment
Harry is a corrections officer at the Grim Correctional Center. He has a reputation among his coworkers for being very strict with inmates and always being ready to issue violations for the slightest breach of prison rules. One of the inmates he has charge over on his wing is George, a career criminal and experienced prisoner. George and Harry do not like each other, and George often tries to challenge Harry’s authority by breaking prison rules or threatening to break them. In the past, Harry has reacted to this resistance by issuing many citations for rule violations and having George dealt with through the inmate disciplinary process. Harry has now reached the stage where he is tired of having his authority questioned by George and has decided to show him who is really the boss. He decides that he will use informal methods to punish George and reinforce his own authority over him. One Friday, Harry inspects George’s cell and finds that George has two more pictures in his cell than is permitted by the rules, according to his inmate classification. Harry considers whether or not he should seize on this violation to use informal means to impose his will on George or whether he should follow proper prison procedures for dealing with rule violations. He knows that prison officers can use various informal ways of controlling prisoners, even though the rules do not allow these methods to be used. Examples would include not telling an inmate about a scheduled visitor appointment, withholding toilet paper, or shutting off the hot water to an inmate’s cell. He decides to think about a possible informal way to deal with George. In his mind, he formulates the following plan. Instead of issuing a disciplinary report for the extra pictures, Harry will not unlock George’s cell the next morning during the daily prison routine and will secretly place a “keep lock” tag on George’s cell door. This tag will indicate to other correctional officers that George is to remain locked in his cell and will suggest that a formal order has been given to this effect. This also means that George will remain locked in the cell until he can get someone’s attention and complain to the deputy superintendent, who will not be on duty until Monday morning. Harry now has to decide whether to act formally or informally.
A Closer Look
Ethical Egoism Evaluation of Ethical Dilemmas
1. What act would most benefit me?
2. How will my self-interest best be promoted?
3. The most ethical course of action is that which is best for me.
4. Will others benefit from what would most benefit me?
A Closer Look
Applying Ethical Egoism
1. What act would most benefit me?
In considering whether to use formal or informal methods to punish George, Harry must consider which action will give him the most benefit. If he takes a formal approach, he knows from past experience that George will continue to resist his efforts to bring George under his control. He feels this will make him look bad in the eyes of other inmates as well as his coworkers. If he takes an informal approach toward controlling George, something he has never done before, he thinks it might be more effective in establishing his control over George. He also thinks he would look better in the eyes of his colleagues if the informal approach works.
2. How will my self-interest best be promoted?
Harry believes his self-interest will be best served by gaining control over George, and therefore, the question is which method, informal or formal, will give him that control over the inmate. He is aware that formal methods have not worked so far, and his inclination is that informal methods will best serve his self-interest.
3. The most ethical action is that which is best for me.
Harry thinks that what is best for him is to adopt the best method to finally get control over George. Again, he has to decide based on his past experience whether formal or informal methods of disciplining George will be best for him. He also has to consider whether the act of breaking prison rules by applying informal disciplinary methods will have a negative affect on him or on his career if his actions are discovered. In this case, he believes that his actions will not be discovered by the administration because the prison officer subculture will ensure that his informal methods of punishment are not revealed to his supervisors. Even if they are discovered, he believes he can claim he just made a mistake.
4. Will others benefit from the action that would most benefit me?
Ethical egoism does not require that one choose an act that will benefit others. It only requires that an act benefit oneself. However, if an act also benefits others in the process of benefiting oneself, that act is still considered ethically correct under an ethical egoist approach. In this case, Harry thinks that gaining control over George using informal methods will also benefit other prison officers because, if he is successful, they will be able to control George more effectively as well and will not have to resort to informal means of controlling him. He also feels that after his demonstration of officer superiority all inmates will show more respect for the prison officers generally in the future.
In all the circumstances, it is clear that the appropriate course of action for Harry, applying the ethical egoist perspective, is to take informal action against George because that will best serve his own self-interest.
SOURCE: Glover 1999.
SUMMARY
Stoicism, ethical egoism, and hedonism have very little following among moral philosophers, even though egoism and hedonism celebrate self-gratification in ways that seem to accord with the values of modern consumer society. However, in ethical terms, they appear to have little to offer.
Stoicism is a complex ethical theory founded, like virtue ethics, during a particular period in history when one civilization was being replaced with another and when philosophical issues were generated by societal change. Stoics argue that a person should learn to become indifferent to external differences and should cultivate a life of indifference. Essentially, it asks that we accept that some things are within our power to change and influence, and others are not. Stoicism tries to persuade us that we can achieve a good will by remaining indifferent to external events and by learning to accept things we cannot change. This is consistent with the Stoic belief in predestination, which emphasizes that nothing happens by chance, that whatever happens has a rational explanation, and that whatever happens is always for the best. Stoics argue that if we try to resist events that have been predetermined, we simply generate frustration and despair within ourselves. In some respects, Stoicism shares the concern of virtue ethics with individual character because it argues that developing the appropriate stoic frame of mind will lead us to virtue.
Hedonism advocates the pursuit of pleasure as the sole good. There are two types of hedonism: psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism. Psychological hedonism assumes that we all look for pleasure in our lives and that all our actions are aimed at achieving pleasure and avoiding pain. Ethical hedonism is the moral version of hedonism, asserting that people not only seek pleasure but also ought to seek pleasure because pleasure alone is good. Quite simply, the answer to the question “How ought I to act?” is answered by hedonists through their contention that the good life is a life of pleasure and that a person ought to act in ways that will achieve pleasure. However, it is difficult to accept that this notion can form the sole basis for deciding how to act ethically in our lives.
Ethical egoists try to persuade us that the right action is one that promotes our own self- interest, and typically, egoists advocate the pursuit of the good things in life regardless of the feelings or concerns of others. Like hedonism, egoism is divided into two forms— namely, psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism suggests that all humans are motivated and act according to egoist concerns and denies all altruistic explanations of behavior, instead contending that apparently unselfish acts are always carried out for egotistical reasons. Ethical egoists claim that morality and reason are served only by promoting one’s own greatest good and self-interest and that we ought to behave in a way that is best for ourselves. This does not mean that we must avoid actions that might help others but rather that we are duty bound to stress the promotion of our own interests.
Among the many criticisms of ethical egoism is the fact that it is quite arbitrary and resembles racism in its regard for the interests of one group as being more important than the interests of others. That is, it divides the world into others and ourselves, and it subordinates all other interests to our own interests. Additionally, it would seem that ethical
9/23/19, 11(30 PM Page 1 of 1
