If I had only five minutes to get to a job interview and I had to choose to press the button “Door Open” or “Door Close” for the two men thirty feet away pushing a large cart, I ought to press “Door Open.” According to Mill’s utilitarianism is “the creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” of the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Cahn,114).Ethical egoism is “the view that, regardless of how men do in fact behave, they have no obligation do anything except what is in their own interests” (Cahn, 72). Rachels’ argument conclusion is a non-egoist will accept ““It would harm another person” as a reason
…show more content…
Through the definition of Rachels and Mill, would indicate that utilitarianism and Rachels’ argument against egoism would support my decision and what I ought to do.
My decision to press “Door Open” meant that my intentions were not self-interest nor selfish, for I know that if I was in their shoes, I would want another to show kindness and keep the door open. Who’s to say that they were not delivering something extremely important or that my needs are more important than those men, it would make me an egoist. Utilitarianism would agree with my action. In the Utilitarianism Powerpoint, it discusses premises 3 as “strictly impartial,” so “we should try make sure individual interest match with the whole interest.” In other words, to promote happiness has to be for the greater good of others. By holding the door open, I am making others happy, which in return is better whether or not my intentions were good or bad. It goes against egoism because it promotes happiness of others as one’s own, rather than just caring about your own happiness. Utilitarianism focuses on happiness and consequences concluding that happiness is the greatest good for the greatest
Through the definition of Rachels and Mill, would indicate that utilitarianism and Rachels’ argument against egoism would support my decision and what I ought to do.
My decision to press “Door Open” meant that my intentions were not self-interest nor selfish, for I know that if I was in their shoes, I would want another to show kindness and keep the door open. Who’s to say that they were not delivering something extremely important or that my needs are more important than those men, it would make me an egoist. Utilitarianism would agree with my action. In the Utilitarianism Powerpoint, it discusses premises 3 as “strictly impartial,” so “we should try make sure individual interest match with the whole interest.” In other words, to promote happiness has to be for the greater good of others. By holding the door open, I am making others happy, which in return is better whether or not my intentions were good or bad. It goes against egoism because it promotes happiness of others as one’s own, rather than just caring about your own happiness. Utilitarianism focuses on happiness and consequences concluding that happiness is the greatest good for the greatest