Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism, in my belief, is not the moral hypothesis that men should follow or live by. Simply put, my belief stems from the multiple inconsistencies and contradictions that are inherent in the said normative system. Self-interest and self-preservation, although very valuable, are not, in my opinion, the primary f propelors that should drive a valets life. It is because, I believe, by purely following ones let interests, man fails to reckon the greater picture, that being the peace and harmony in society.More importantly, I believe that man can be driven by other(a) desires and motives in his moral actions. Hobbes assertion is that man should use his power to salvage himself and to do what he must in order to satisfy his own interests. His fundamental assumption regarding the reputation of man is that man is an agent of self-interest who is prepared to harm others in order to obtain what he believes is best for him. Furthermore, Hobbes states that man is governed by his own reason and that every man has the right to everything. Such instruction is what Hobbes calls the fundamental law of nature.However, Hobbes believes that if it is in the self-interest and preservation of ones life to enter into a covenant with another, man is bound to abide by such covenant. Contracts are reached when both parties feel that it is in their best interests to enter and agree to the terms. Breaking a covenant or a contract is considered unjust in Hobbes view. Hobbes idea is that man must submit to certain moral rules out of fear of meshing which is to his best interests. Basically, Hobbes suggested that a human being acts chastely because it is in his self-interest to do so.There strike been heterogeneous philosophers who have raised arguments and objections against Hobbes views. One of such philosophers is H. A. Prichard. In Prichards point of view, there is no extremity to whether self-interest and morality run in parallel with each other. Instead, he sugges ts that human beings have reasons other than self-interest to act morally. One such reason is the innate desire in humans to do the right thing. Prichard suggests that having motives other than self-interest allows us to determine whether an individual who has done something moral deserves praise or not.Without the presence of other motives, self-interest will be the only operate factor and thus, will get out any possible distinction between two persons committing the same moral act. Brodys argument with regards to the rear end of morality on self-interest is that human beings can have other motives for being moral. Admitting that all actions are based on the satisfaction of a certain desire, Brody states that humans may have desires for something else other than his own well-being. Brody believes that selfish motives are indeed a possible source of moral actions.However, he asserts that this does not tight that all moral actions stem from selfish motives alone. In other words, egoism is not clearly ceremonious as the sole source of morality. My belief that ethical egoism is not the correct moral opening agrees with Brodys assertions. Aside from the points that Brody has raised, I believe that ethical egoism fails to consider the possibility that men act not for their own interests alone. The interests of another person may drive the man to act morally specially if such a person is deeply valued. For instance a parent may act morally not for her own interests but for that of her children.Ethical egoism fails to consider that human nature includes certain emotions that are driving factors of ones actions. Emotions or feelings such as love, care, and affection are also possible motives for actions. These have not been taken into account by ethical egoism. Thus, it is my personal belief that ethical egoism is not the correct moral theory. Reference Arthur, John. 2005. Morality, Religion, and Conscience. In Arthur, J. (Ed. ) Morality and Moral Controversie s Readings in Moral, Social, and Political Philosophy. Upper saddleback roof River, N. J. Pearson Prentice Hall.