poll: teleological ethical paradigms

There are two major teleological ethical paradigms. Teleological theories only concern themselves with the consequences of an action - not whether an action is good or bad in a metaphysical sense.

#1. Egoism: One should act in their own best interest, regardless of the interests of others.

#2: Utilitarianism: One should act in a way which maximizes the amount of good over bad for everyone affected by the act.

Of the two, which do you consider the superior ethical system? One or the other must be chosen, there is no third option. Why did you choose one or the other?

 

which one has free beer

 

"Teleological theories only concern themselves with the consequences of an action - not whether an action is good or bad in a metaphysical sense."

"which do you consider the superior ethical system? "

Don't those contradict eachother?
I planned on voting egoism untill i saw the word ethical appear

 

fixed

wait what

 

Not if he's smart

 

can you just be both? Like around selfish people you can be selfish and then around unselfish people you can be caring and share stuff?

I guess I think about other people a lot and will be willing to go out of my way to help them. But there are certain people who are selfish and would never do the same for me so I say fuck them and think of my own best interest when dealing with them.

 

If I allowed a third option that was a mix between the two, everyone would have voted for that and all of the responses would have been ultimately meaningless.

Think about the question carefully. When these two ideals (the desire to help others and the desire to help yourself) become conflicted, which one prevails?

I actually think you've already come up with the answer, you're just a little hesitant to accept it.

 

Well being self aware makes people selfish. But our inner workings of being a part of a giant living organism is gonna tell us to procreate and you kinda have to think about others to do that.

If the desire to help your self or others conflicts doesn't it depend on the situation? Your gonna save the princess instead of run out the castle alone. But your sure as hell not gonna run back for the jester. haha what do you think my answer is that I am hesitant to accept?

 

I'm utilitarian because I believe it is the best egoistic course of action.

I.E I believe in maximising good because it in turn maximises my own personal gain.

 

Well let's pick apart your example and glean a little more understanding from the situation.

Saving the princess could arguably be both altrustic - you're saving a life at increased risk to yourself - and egoistic - saving a princess's life is pretty prestigious and, after all, she's kind of cute - whereas running back in to save the jester is pretty much just altrustic. He's short, fat, and ugly, and nobody would particularly care if he dies but I'm sure he's got some more years of entertaining the court in him if he comes out alive, and saving another person's life is always a good thing if you think you've got a good shot at doing it, but you've little to personally gain from the action and potentially much to lose (your life).

In the areas of your life where the two conflict you seem to choose egoism, but that's just my perspective.

 

It is what it is.. haha I don't mind being either. I just can't see my self being completley one or the other.. I guess predominantly I would choose egoism tho.

 

The problem with these sorts of things and questions is the definition of Good and Bad. What is Good for one person may be Bad for another (Ex: Exterminating the Jews). Really these are ultimately useless questions with out first a concrete definition of these terms, one which every one can agree to.

Of course, that makes the whole exercise futile because you cannot absolutely define either of them.

 

In theory if everyone would be
1: noone gets what they want, everyone looses
2: everybody gets something , mostly win

i'd prefer modyfied 2, theres no such "ethical theory" that would be reasonable for every situation

also ,pickled, about your princes thingy, it depends on a person ,and why do they do that, because in the end everyone (that gives a shit about others opinion) would say that he did it out of altruisim

 

These two paradigms are the extremes of a very granular line. Choosing either will never represent a person accurately. Even if a person is 90% egoistic, he'll still act vastly different compared to a person who is 100% egoistic.

 

there's absolutely no problem with the definition of good and bad. the only thing we need to agree upon is that good, whatever it is, should be promoted, and bad, whatever it is, should be discouraged.

if good is exterminating the jews to you, then fine, tell me why: egoistic or utilitarian tendencies? do you kill the jews because it pleases you or because you think it benefits society or some group of people?

and yet an overwhelming majority of people have no problem with identifying with one of two major political parties despite not necessarily agreeing with the entire party platform they ascribe to.

 

Utilitarism in the grand scheme of things means that everybody lives in wood huts and there are no other huts.

Ethical egoism means that some live in skyscrapers and some live on the streets while the skycraper people hand down some cash or police batons to the poor depending on the flavor of the goverment.

So yeah, ethical egoism is the right choice obviously.

 

It's a question where 2 answers just won't work...while being altruistic we really care about our own good most of the time. And pure egoist wouldnt survive in society.

There is no such thing as "pure altruist" or "pure egoist".

I personally hate black-white things. Truth is somewhere between. Always. And no one is innocent.

 

I don't think the two ever conflict.

If something is good for society it pleases me, if it is not good for society then it displeases me.

Therefore, everything I like is either good for society or not relevant to society, and everything that is good for society pleases me.