Skip to main content

Views on Egoism

 

Views on Egoism

According to LaFollette (2007), there are two main schools of thought on egoism. First, there is psychological egoism, and there is ethical egoism. The psychological egoist claims it shows that everyone always seeks to promote her own interests (LaFollette, 2007, p. 272). An enlightened ethical egoist would recognize that it is in her interest to embrace some legal and moral protections against violence and theft since these are essential means for promoting her interests (LaFollette, 2007, p. 281). My views on these two forms or egoism is a split decision. While on one hand I agree that you might not get very far in life if you didn’t make attempts at promoting yourself, and your individual interests, I also think that life has a way of equaling itself out. Not always do we need to be the center of attention and act in an egotistical way. When we conform to a more ethical standard, we understand there are factors we can try to control or follow. Generally defined as the view that one ought to do whatever and only whatever is in one's own maximum interest, benefit, advantage, or good, "ethical egoism" contrasts with (1) psychological egoism, which says that people do in fact, perhaps necessarily, act in that way; and from (2) alternative ethical theories, which claim that we have other fundamental obligations such as to act for the sake of others, even at ultimate cost to ourselves, or in ways having no necessary relation to anyone's benefit (Narveson, 2006, p. 361).

Egos in the way

I believe egoism gets in the way of a lot of the decision-making in the workplace for numerous reasons. Again, we’re all humans, and we’re preprogramed in different ways that may cause friction between others. We’re not always on the “same page” with our coworkers or leadership. As such, we take things personally, and when this happens, all bets are off. Egos have been known to get other people killed. We have a history of doing this for as long as history has been recorded. Rather than put our self-interests aside, we put them front and center for everyone to see, and we become blinded by them in our decision-making abilities.

Do Leaders Deserve More

We know that leadership can be difficult, hard, and not always fun. Leaders must do what others may not want to do or are not capable of doing it altogether. Does this mean that leaders should be provide things that followers don’t receive? Should leaders receive more pay, more benefits, or more respect? Is it ethical to give a certain group of people more because they’re in charge? I see there are more questions than answers, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Questioning our standards can lead us to more enlightenment. I happen to think that in the grand scheme of things, everyone gets something. Blue collar workers may not have a secondary degree, but they do have certifications and experience, and they’re compensated in different ways. White collar workers may have the degree and the experience, but they have to make the tough decisions that impact the entire organization. With that comes a lot of stress, as so, they should be compensated in a way that meets their needs.

Rewards for Promoting Ethics

If we’re going to give leaders more of the slice of pie, more recognition or more kudos, shouldn’t that due to their ability to promote more ethical behavior?  Doing what we want often makes us happy, while we are usually dissatisfied if we cannot do what we want (LaFollette, 2007, p. 272). Living ethically is a tough stance to take, especially when we’re surrounded by dishonesty. No one is going to make us choose, but instead, we must find our path through the ethical maze that is life.

References

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. In The practice of ethics (pp. 8-21). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Narveson, J. (2006). Ethical Egoism. In Encyclopedia of philosophy / (Vol. 3, pp. 361–363). Macmillan Reference USA.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How I make choosing easier

In Sheena Iyengar’s TEDx video (2011), she describes four techniques you can use to improve choosing or decision-making. These techniques included cut, concretize, categorize and condition. Each technique is unique, and I have used these at one point or another in my life. As Iyengar describes it, she says to “be choosy about choosing” (Iyengar, 2011) which is a brilliant statement that summarizes her video about making choices. Whether you’re a child or an adult, everyone goes through each day having to make many decisions. All too often, we over complicate scenarios in which we could have used these techniques to improve our decision-making. The two techniques I’d like to discuss are cut and categorize. Cut or cutting, involves reducing or outright eliminating choices from the decision matrix. In order to make choosing easier, we must reduce the number of choices. Iyengar (2011) points out the choice overload problem, where as consumers, we are overloaded with far too many choice...
Post a Comment
Read more

My Strengths and Weaknesses

  My Distinctive Strengths I feel like a lot of what I do I do really well. When I put my mind to it, I believe I can do whatever I want. I know that I’m well organized, I’m a great communicator, I’m someone that recognizes strengths in other people and I’m also great at building people up. My Potential Strengths I know I can do better in some areas, but certain things prevent me from accomplishing them. Namely, if I don’t already have work in my queue, I’m really not that interested in adding it. This also adds to a lack of focus, which is something I know I should do better. Also, I think I could do a better job at remembering things if I applied myself more to the situation. Dispositions That Support Me My positivity is at the top of the list for me that I don’t want to change. I get so much of my mojo from being and staying positive that I can’t see myself changing this. I also think that my faith is something that I wouldn’t change, unless I did it for myself. That i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Guns, Guns, Guns

  Guns Do we have a right to bear arms? According to LaFollette (2007), this is a moral question, not a constitutional one (p. 180). The United States Constitution certainly says we do. Millions of citizens would also say we do, as well. Hundreds of years ago, the founding fathers of this country decided that people should be able own firearms. It wasn’t simply owning the weapons that they were intent on stating, but that it was a right of every person. A right means that no one can take it away from you for any reason. Just like freedom of speech, everyone has the right to own a gun. However, there are concerns, rightfully so, from people who wish to create a more sensible approach to this right. Gun control advocates have long considered accidents involving guns a major reason for introducing greater regulation of firearms, including such measures as mandated training for gun purchases, firearm safety locks, and strict limitations on the ownership of handguns ( Utter & Spi...
Post a Comment
Read more