Whether one should be moral or not, regarding his support to the poor, is a question that is being discussed for many years and the same remains lurked. Philosophers and thinkers of the world have conducted various studies about this subject and have made different arguments for and against this issue. When one considers the incident that occurred with Mr. David, who has received $100,000 from his bank teller, instead of the $10 he requested, one can take a stand either with David or with the bank teller Carla, who was accused of stealing and was imprisoned. Carla is the mother of three children and does not have any living relatives. But David is not ready to give the money back to the bank and he spends on his personal needs. This mentality of David is discussed here in this paper and attempts to evaluate the moral obligation of David in giving back the amount.
Two viewpoints are possible with this topic, that is, either joining with the viewpoint of James Rachels or with Ayn Rand, Ethical Egoism and In Defense of Ethical Egoism. Ethical egoism does not support the interests of others and a radical view of ethical egoism views that it is enough for one to promote one’s interest and it focuses only on one interest, that is, self-interest. The concept of ethical egoism has a universal interest. “Universal ethical egoism is the universal doctrine that all persons should pursue their interests exclusively.” (Philosophy 302: Ethics Ethical Egoism). The ethical issue is not based on moral principles. If one observes the issue based on ethical egoism, it is to be noted that David does not want to give the amount back to Carla or take care of her children. But the other point of view is that one has to follow the moral principles in his life by surrendering the self-interest and other physical pleasures that are waiting for him. As man is living in society, he has the moral duty to satisfy the needs and the interests of others as they are doing to him. David and Carla are the products of society and it is their moral obligation to help or care for each other when it is necessary. But that concept has not been considered in this case and David is motivated and he looks forward only to his self-interest.
Ethical egoism insists one get away from the actions to help others. It is opined that one’s actions should be for the benefit of oneself and one should not have any other personal considerations. As David needs money it was unnecessary for him to think of other factors or to have feelings like sympathy towards Carla or her children. An action that is motivated and is beneficial for others will not make the action right if it is not for the personal interest. Here David is looking for the personal benefits disregarding moral values and the life of a lady in jail, deprived of her family and children. He does not want to think about her social status or profession but only the amount that reached his hands. Though there is a conflict taking place in the mind of David regarding $100,000, he succeeds in his attempt to overcome such conflicts and the prick of conscience and possesses the money as his own. He rejects the question of morality for his interest and enjoys the luxury in the tears of the lady, Carla.
A contradicted analysis of these shows that one’s actions should not be aimed at attaining personal pleasure but the happiness of others should also be considered. When one is looking for personal pleasure, one should think that others have the same feelings as him and they have the moral right to be treated like him. By personal pleasures, they do not mean of a pleasure that is provided with smoking or drinking, the finest examples of selfishness can be regarded as foolish deeds. David’s deed is not the one including in this category but may be viewed as the one having some of its features. One can’t assert one’s duties or what one should be. But some moral duties are thought to be followed
effectively using one’s commonsense. One should also be aware of the natural duties that are performed in the society and should be able to go with them. The commonly discussed factor is that it is not mandatory that everyone should agree with the opinion of one person. His commonsense may be a foolish thing for the others and he may be subjected to criticism. David may be criticized by most people but he can justify by telling that he has the right to take decisions as his own and he is moral to his own mind. Ethical egotism is comparable to the ethical doctrine and the given quotation makes it clear which says, “Ethical egoism is in contrast with the ethical doctrine of altruism which holds that individuals have an ethical obligation to help or serve others. A philosophy holding that one should be honest, just, benevolent etc., because those virtues serve one’s self-interest is egoistic; one holding that one should practice those virtues for reasons other than self-interest is not egoistic.” (Ethical Egoism). It may be questioned in the same manner. Those who oppose David’s view may claim of the right of Carla, who has been punished for a crime which she has never imagined of. Moreover she is a mother and her children are isolated from their mother and also from the society. David’s inclination to money has affected the smooth functioning of one family, caused for loosing their status, forced to face physical and mental torture, and the curse of spending one’s life in the dark prison. All these things could have been avoided, if David had returned the $100,000 dollars to the bank. As he had no right to the money, except $10, it would have been better to remit the same in bank and saved the life of a poor woman and her children. If he had done so, one can assert that it is a sacred act from David’s part which may later bring him prosperity in his life. If it was difficult for him to remit the full amount to the bank, he could have spent a portion of the amount for the betterment of Carla’s children. Though he feels guilty at the beginning, it does not affect his desire to have a BMW and he approaches a dealer with hefty down-payment in his pocket.
Psychological egoism is contradictory to strong moral beliefs and the same feeling can be spotted out in David who does not have the moral beliefs and is motivated with money. It is a tendency generally seen in the modern man, devoid of natural feelings and sympathy towards his fellow beings. He gives more importance to himself and nothing or no one is greater or superior than him. Human relations are of secondary importance to him, and he gets stimulated with the passion to hoard more money. Whether some one lost his life or is put in prisons or is suffering tragic isolation, is not at all a problem for him. David can be regarded as one among the examples of such people.
Objectivism or ethical egoism is the prominent feature found in David with his action of receiving the undeserved money thus by causing the destruction of one family, knowingly or unknowingly. This ethical egoism haunts moral philosophy from people’s minds, taking them away from religious principles or religious doctrines and makes their minds hardened as stones against tender feelings. It may give support to wicked actions in them. Such kind of mentality leads one to commit various crimes like burglary, raping and even murder. The main principle of ethical egoism that ‘one’s duty is to promote one’s own interest’ may not be always possible and the same may lead one to greediness and finally to moral decay. When one feels that he/she is greater than everything else and there is nothing above him/her, he/she may naturally turn to savagery, leading the country to anarchy. If one looks on the attitude of David in terms of ethical egoism, it can be seen that it divides people into two groups – ourselves and all the rest – and always regard themselves as the prominent among the two. But a deep evaluation will take away the veils and reveal the reality, that is, each and everyone is equal and one can never claim that he is entirely different from others or he has some special features. This reality will lead to the fact that objectiveness is arbitrary and one cannot rely upon it. It is like racism in the sense that it is both arbitrary and sensitive. If David had understood this reality, he would not have attempted this and might have either returned the amount to the bank or would have given it to Carla’s children. These realities will remind them the futility of leading a life by neglecting moral principles. Whether David has the moral obligation to return the $100,000 to the bank might have revealed through the previous discussions. The previous discussions have viewed that ethical egoism leads one to selfishness and his ridiculing attitude to others. Persons like David are attracted to the luxuries of human life and they know well that happiness is the successful state of the mind and pain is an agent of death. But they do not think of its other side, that is, his happiness may not be the happiness of others and it may be the sadness of others, like Carla. They are not tended to love the fellow beings or give importance to love as the greatest reward that one can earn for the moral qualities.
Works Cited
Ethical Egoism. The Spiritus Temporis Web Ring Community. 2009. Web.
Philosophy 302: Ethics Ethical Egoism. Philosophy.Lander.edu. 2009. Web.