A Case for Egoism and Utilitarianism

A Case for Egoism and Utilitarianism

The subject of morality is a tough one since what is considered right or wrong is profoundly subjective and differs from one person to another. This has necessitated the formulation of moral theories that attempt to explain how and why we view right and wrong the way we do. These theories have had a profound effect on our understanding of morality and have been instrumental in resolving conflicts and ensuring people live peaceably. However, these theories fundamentally vary, and their approach to morality can be quite different. The most popularly accepted normative theory of ethics is perhaps utilitarianism. However, a keener investigation exposes its imperfections and necessitates the intervention of other moral arguments to tackle problems within and beyond the workplace. One such useful ethical philosophy is egoism, which has been massively overlooked and unappreciated over the years.

In today’s capitalistic society, it would be remiss not to notice the prevalence of egoism in virtually every aspect of life. The moral philosophy of egoism advances self-interest as the ultimate factor for determining the rightness or wrongness of an act. According to Shaw and Barry, egoism “equates morality with self-interest” (57) If an action provides the doer with maximum gain, it is considered to be the right action to take whereas if an activity does not benefit the doer the most, it is regarded as a wrong move. Egoism is further divided into two: personal egoism and impersonal egoism. The former advocates that a person only considers his/her self-interest and does not consider what other people should be doing. The former, however, proposes that everyone should use their self-interest as the basis for decision making in their lives. Regardless of the kind of egoism, self-interest remains at the core of this moral philosophy. Since egoism is based on the premise that all humans are born selfish, it is no surprise that it has widely been rejected as a moral standard due to its overwhelming disadvantages..

The psychological foundation upon which egoism is built upon offers the biggest stumbling block to egoism as a moral theory. It states that all humans are naturally selfish and only motivated by their self-interest. This has, however, been disapproved since there are numerous everyday examples of how people deny themselves pleasures for the sake of the enjoyment of others even when it is not in their best self-interest to do so. This raises another fundamental issue that “egoism is not a moral theory at all” (Shaw, and Barry 59). Since morality is meant to restrain people’s self-interests to make it possible for harmonious co-existence, opponents of egoism argue that the self-centred ‘morality’ cannot be used to achieve morality as suggested by egoism. With an emphasis on selfishness, egoism has been accused of facilitating morally wrong actions such as deception and stealing to satisfy the self-interests of the perpetrators. This underscores the shortcomings of egoism as a moral theory since it evidently leads to immorality with the hope that its resultant immorality will curtail the immorality in the world. This can be seen as a somewhat illogical argument that makes little to no sense at all for opponents of this theory. In complete contrast to egoism is the moral philosophy of utilitarianism that has been widely accepted as a model ethical theory.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that generally seeks to produce a positive result for everyone associated with an action. Simply put, utilitarianism dictates that “we can decide what is morally right or morally wrong by weighing up which of our future possible actions promotes such goodness in our lives and the lives of people more generally” (Dimmock, and Fisher 11) The core of this moral theory is the overall good outcomes impacting the most people. In this theory, good is equated to pleasure and happiness. Since it emphasizes the results to determine whether an action is morally right or wrong, utilitarianism is an example of a consequential moral theory. The guiding principle of utilitarianism is the determination of the net good of an action. Before undertaking any action, one is prompted to consider whether the act will bring more good to the people associated with it. If not, a person is then compelled to find an alternat6ive course of action that will benefit more people the most. This is the general form of utilitarianism commonly referred to as act utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is very appealing to many people and often used as a standard for moral decision making due to several of its features.

Utilitarianism is a progressive approach to morality in the workplace as it provides a clear guideline on how to arrive at decisions. It considers the general good of all stakeholders and encourages people to question the utility of rules and policies to determine whether they are in the best interest of the people involved. This also eliminates the matter of holding one’s self-interests above others. On the contrary, sincere utilitarianism requires one to consider the happiness of others without paying any more or less attention to one’s happiness when deciding on which action to take. It, therefore, promotes morality since it eliminates selfishness which motivates most immoral and unethical human practices. As a consequential moral theory, utilitarianism also provides a practical approach to ethical decision making in complex multi-faceted situations. By focusing on the impact of actions, it ensures that no action is intrinsically right or wrong, thus empowering decision-makers to take the most profitable steps concerning happiness levels. (Shaw, and Barry 63) Despite all the general acceptance of utilitarianism and its numerous positive attributes, it is still plagued by some challenges.

Utilitarianism faces numerous drawbacks that challenge its approach to the philosophical issue of determining what’s right and what’s wrong. What is perhaps the biggest drawback is the subjectivity of abstract qualities such as happiness and pain, which form the premise of the theory. There is no universal standard for determining what pleasure and pain are nor how their intensity can be measured. Therefore, what one person might consider being a happy or pleasurable outcome might be regarded as painful according to another person. To overcome this challenge, utilitarianism relies on the concept of net happiness determined by how many people are happy with an outcome compared to people who are unhappy with the same outcome. Another argument against utilitarianism is that it might promote actions that are not necessarily right or moral simply because they tend to provide a mostly happy or pleasurable outcome. Shaw and Barry describe such a situation as they explain how someone may result in breaking a promise, which is not a noble thing in itself, for the greater good. (62) It is such criticisms that have made critiques question whether utilitarianism is a practical moral theory.

In our current pluralistic society which embraces diversity, both egoism and utilitarianism have profound impacts on applied business ethics. Both play essential roles in determining what’s acceptable and continually shaping each other with regard to business ethics. Since the sole purpose of most business ventures is to make a profit for their shareholders, egoism propels businesses to profitability. The egoism practised by each employee in the pursuit of professional advancement makes it possible for an organization to achieve profitability. At the same time, public pressure and scrutiny on businesses have forced organizations to focus on the greater good that usually encompasses a variety of aspects. Besides just focusing on making money at all costs, as advocated by egoism, businesses have been forced to be mindful of the welfare of their employees, take care of the environment and give back to the community as dictated by utilitarianism. While egoism has often not been “taken seriously as a normative ethical theory” (Burgess-Jackson 541), it can be argued that it is equally as beneficial as utilitarianism. The interplay between these two moral theories proves to be both useful and necessary for any functional business or organization.

Despite the numerous outlined advantages of utilitarianism, it is essential to note that it cannot comprehensively deal with all moral issues within the workplace. Since ethical dilemmas in the workplace are rarely straightforward and easy to solve, there is a need for applying multiple normative moral theories to tackle them satisfactorily. Despite the differences that exist between egoism and utilitarianism, the two moral theories converge on some issues. They seem to complement each other when solving ethical problems pertaining to the workplace. Since egoism focuses on the happiness on an individual while utilitarianism emphasizes on the happiness of the collectivity, it can be summarized that they “lie at opposite ends of the partiality spectrum” (Burgess-Jackson 532) It is this difference that makes their combination relevant in solving work-related conflicts.

A good example is how business practices motivated by self-interests results in economic profitability benefit the entire society and contributes to the net happiness of all parties involved. This is the backbone of capitalism, the predominant economic system in the world today, which has greatly benefitted humankind. Since different people subscribe to different moral philosophies, it is essential to note that both utilitarianism and egoism can profitably coexist in a similar work environment.

In a diverse workplace where people subscribe to different beliefs, these two moral principles can resolve conflicts, albeit through distinctively different approaches. As an example, a common workplace conflict such as disagreements between managers and subordinates due to personality clashes can be sorted out by both moral philosophies. In such a conflict egoism would appeal to both parties’ self-interest and highlight that a protracted state of antagonism would damage their overall business performance and jeopardize their jobs. Since it is in neither of their best interests to offend each other, egoism would dictate that both the managers and their subordinates strive to amicably resolve their conflict to restore a conducive work environment that will benefit them individually. However, a possible detrimental outcome might also arise if either party decides to use immoral means to get rid of the opposing side. In the case of utilitarianism, the managers and their subordinates would equally be compelled to consider the net happiness in the workplace. Rather than considering their sense of satisfaction, utilitarianism would compel the warring factions to take into account the other people’s sentiments and views. By considering the net happiness above individual happiness, such conflicts in the workplace can easily be amicably mitigated. However, on the negative side, utilitarianism might also lead to self-deprecating outcomes as it may force someone to resign from an organization so as to make others happy. Since in both cases the “right action is determined retrospectively, based on the goodness of external consequences,” (Stout, and Love 283) utilizing both egoistic and utilitarian philosophies would result in the best outcome. Such a solution would ensure that both parties enjoy a lasting solution as this would be beneficial for both self and collectivity.

Since philosophy, more so with regards to morality, provides that there is no right or wrong but only depends on how the case is presented, I believe that the case for both utilitarianism and egoism has been made. Even though egoism has vehemently been demonized and taken less seriously as a moral philosophy, it can be seen and concluded that it is an important force in settling disputes in the workplace and the realization of a profitable organization. The general conclusion is that no single moral philosophy is self-sufficient and that appreciation of different ethical philosophies is the key to resolving