Philosophical Journal #2 Chapter four is about Egoism, Altruism, and the Social Contract. Egoism is defined as someone who is primarily concerned with their own well-being. There are two kinds of Egoism, Descriptive Egoism and Psychological Egoism. Descriptive Egoism holds that people are basically self-centered or selfish; that is, people primarily pursue their own self-interest. This is true at birth, we are all born as a self-centered baby. We cry when we need something and we don’t stop until we get it. Psychological Egoism is a view about how people behave or why they do what they do. It is important why people do the things that they do. Altruism is defined as someone who has a pure concern for the well-being of others. I believe
…show more content…
I thought this chapter was interesting and it made me think a lot more about utilitarianism. I think utilitarianism is right in some circumstances, like making a speed limit of sixty-five miles per hour instead of allowing people to drive as slow or fast as they want. If drivers drive too slow it can cause more accidents and more traffic jams. If drivers drive too fast they can lose control, cause more accidents, and scare other people. But, in other circumstances like limiting reproduction to one child it is not the job to tell someone how many kids they can have. If the issue doesn't have a high risk to the safety of people, then each person should be able to make that choice individually. I don't believe that utilitarianism is right or wrong, but it depends on the situation. Does a terrorist count the same as a decorated war veteran? Should we use the actions of people to decide whether they count equally? I believe that accused criminals should have rights equal to those who are innocent. Once they are proven guilty they should lose certain rights like freedom, bear arms, and voting. Utilitarianism is useful in situations when important people like priests, politicians, and cops, do some wrong. Even though these individuals are important doesn’t mean they should be forgiven and not prosecuted. Everyone in the eyes of the law should be equally prosecuted to the full extent of the
I thought this chapter was interesting and it made me think a lot more about utilitarianism. I think utilitarianism is right in some circumstances, like making a speed limit of sixty-five miles per hour instead of allowing people to drive as slow or fast as they want. If drivers drive too slow it can cause more accidents and more traffic jams. If drivers drive too fast they can lose control, cause more accidents, and scare other people. But, in other circumstances like limiting reproduction to one child it is not the job to tell someone how many kids they can have. If the issue doesn't have a high risk to the safety of people, then each person should be able to make that choice individually. I don't believe that utilitarianism is right or wrong, but it depends on the situation. Does a terrorist count the same as a decorated war veteran? Should we use the actions of people to decide whether they count equally? I believe that accused criminals should have rights equal to those who are innocent. Once they are proven guilty they should lose certain rights like freedom, bear arms, and voting. Utilitarianism is useful in situations when important people like priests, politicians, and cops, do some wrong. Even though these individuals are important doesn’t mean they should be forgiven and not prosecuted. Everyone in the eyes of the law should be equally prosecuted to the full extent of the