The Theory of Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism Report (Assessment)

Ethical egoism is a normative theory that advocates that a person’s own good is consistent with the concept of morality. Ethical egoism also does not require moral agents to prejudice the interests and well-being of others by making their moral choices. Thus, ethical egoism claims that actions whose consequences benefit the performer of these actions are ethical. A possible moral choice in the situation can also be interpreted from the point of view of the theory of existentialism and hedonism.

Point of View of the Theory of Ethical Egoism

On the one hand, it seems that Nora’s impulse to copy off a friend’s report is consistent with the basic concepts of ethical egoism because she will benefit from this action. However, the concept of ethical egoism does not necessarily entail that, in pursuit of one’s interests, people should always do what they want if the fulfillment of momentary desires can negatively affect a person in the future. A thoughtlessly written off report entails quite tangible consequences, and getting a poor mark is only one of them. If it is possible to choose a good variant without harming others, then it is the right choice. Setting up a friend in this way will not lead to a good outcome for Nora: she will lose her trust and ruin her reputation. Thus, from the point of view of ethical egoism, Nora must weigh the risks and make a choice in favor of the minimum negative consequences for herself, taking into account the possibility of a damaged relationship with the friend, loss of reputation, a poor mark, as well as possible shame for what she did.

Point of View of Other Ethical Theories

One of the most advantageous theories applicable to the whole situation is the ethical theory of existentialism. Evaluation of Nora’s moral choice is impossible from the point of view of theories based on the result obtained during the analysis since it is unpredictable in this situation. If Nora writes off the work, she and her friend will be in danger of being punished. However, everything can go well, and no one will notice the decommissioned work. There is another option: if Nora honestly tells the teacher that she does not have enough time to finish the work, the punishment can be mitigated. Nora can also ask her classmate for help; perhaps together, they will have enough time to do something before the deadline. From the existential point of view, the very fact of having a free choice makes a person exist, which means that it is not so important whether the choice is good or bad. On the other hand, the concept of hedonism puts the pleasure of the individual above anything else; the attempt to avoid punishment and the possible benefit, as well as the pleasure of resolving the situation, can be worth deception.

Ethical Issues of Using Drones

In the 2010s, the US administration adopted a drone program; over several years, five hundred and sixty-three drone strikes were carried out in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, killing more than 800 civilians. Naturally, questions about the ethics of using such weapons quickly arose in society. The moral question, not based on legality, is whether it is morally good or bad to use drones. The main moral issue regarding drones is the ambiguous impact of this technology on the pilots’ health.

The government’s point of view suggests that remote weapon drones are a good solution for minimizing physical costs in the military. Indeed, drone pilots are not physically present on the battlefield. However, although the pilots are not near the drone, they play a major role from the ethical side of the issue. Moreover, the risks to human life and health are not limited to physical damage. Many cases of psychological stress of operations’ participants have been registered, and the harm of moral injuries negatively affects health as physical ones. Some may argue that the psychological harm to the drone pilot is exaggerated, but technology does not standstill. Rapidly advancing technology in general calls for a rethinking of many ethical issues (Quinn, 2020). As this technology improves, RPA pilots will see the target not as mere pixels but as a person; therefore, increased psychological consequences are inevitable.

One more ethical issue is associated with the use of drones related to the difficulty of the decision to start a war on the part of the state. The possibility of remote warfare makes the decision to start a war too easy. Therefore, any decision to start a war under such circumstances may be unfair. Another ethical complication is how far the goals of such a war justify the means: civilian casualties and danger to the pilot. Of course, casualties among the population are inevitable in the conduct of any war; with drone technology, casualties can be minimized, but it does not occur. It is still impossible to imagine a war completely remote from all sides. Even if the drone pilot himself is safe, the person supporting the operation from the ground is in mortal danger. Thus, the assumption that long-range combat capabilities lead to risk-free wars is empirically untenable.

The Drawbacks of the Utilitarianism Ethical Theory

The standard definition of utilitarianism is that actions are defined as ‘right’ or ‘correct’ based on their ability to promote happiness. If any action causes a backlash, it can be called ‘wrong.’ Such thinking assumes that the goal justifies the means to achieve a particular result. Utilitarianism suggests that if an action brings more happiness than any other available alternative, that choice is considered the right one. From a utilitarian point of view, actions are considered right only if the outcome of the decision maximizes what is classified as good versus what can be considered bad. Thus, utilitarianism comes from the assumption that happiness is always good for a person. The concept of utilitarianism has several disadvantages: not considering the unpredictability of future results, the subjectivity of the concept of happiness, the features of feeling happiness, and the possibility of absolute dominance of the majority.

One of the main drawbacks of utilitarianism is that it focuses on the outcome of a choice rather than the action itself. There is no moral judgment about the actions a person decides to take. The only consequences occur if the outcome does not somehow maximize happiness. If a person’s actions bring maximum happiness, then it doesn’t matter that other people think it’s wrong. Utilitarianism suggests people look to the future and then predict what will bring them the highest level of happiness today. Moreover, happiness is a completely subjective concept: what brings joy to one person is terrible for another. It is also impossible to accurately calculate or measure a certain amount of happiness that a person receives from something. Such a vague category for assessing the moral aspects of actions is untenable.

Every activity that a person tries will always be exciting if the first experience is positive. Each time this action is repeated, the amount of happiness received may decrease, which is normal. From the point of view of this theory, it turns out that a person should stop the action if it ceases to bring happiness, which seems not quite adequate. In addition, utilitarianism would allow the majority to have full power over all aspects of public life. For example, if most people considered pedophilia acceptable and normal, that would justify any laws or regulations that allow such behavior, even if such a choice would be seen as a clear moral wrong.

Evaluation of the Complete Act from the Point of View of Various Ethical Theories

Ahmed’s act can almost unequivocally be viewed from a bad side. Firstly, it is almost illegal from the point of view of the law on non-disclosure of personal data. From the point of view of Kant’s ethical theory, before making a moral choice, a person must ask how this action will benefit other people, not just the person himself. It is clear that Ahmed cared more about his profits than about the well-being of his clients; accordingly, he should not have provided personal data for the advertising agency.

From the standpoint of utilitarianism, Ahmed was free to do what he could most advantageously maximize happiness from. On the one hand, customers’ happiness is not achieved, since now they will receive promotional mailings and calls. However, on the other hand, Ahmed’s actions could lead to the buyer finding a favorite coffee producer, the producers will profit, and Ahmed himself. Thus, everyone will approach the highest possible level of happiness. Another very likely outcome of events: if customers find out who provided their personal data, they will refuse Ahmed’s services, which will ruin his reputation. Thus, in the short term, the action could lead to happiness, and in the long term, it can completely destroy the person’s reputation. Since utilitarianism is not capable of working with delayed consequences, it is impossible to fully evaluate an act from the point of view of this theory.

Reference

Quinn, M.J. (2020). Ethics for the information age. (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley