Assignment 2 ( What are Egoism and Types of Egoism? Briefly explain.

Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism)

There are three types of egoism which are?

1. Psychological Egoism

2. Ethical Egoism

3. Rational Egoism

1.Psychological Egoism

Psychological egoism claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare. This allows for action that fails to maximize perceived self-interest, but rules out the sort of behavior psychological egoists like to target such as altruistic behavior or motivation by thoughts of duty alone. It allows for weakness of will, since in weakness of will cases I am still aiming at my own welfare; I am weak in that I do not act as I aim. And it allows for aiming at things other than one's welfare, such as helping others, where these things are a means to one's welfare.

Psychological egoism is supported by our frequent observation of self-interested behavior. Apparently altruistic action is often revealed to be self-interested. And we typically motivate people by appealing to their self-interest (through, for example, punishments and rewards).

2. Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism claims that it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be morally right that it maximize one's self-interest. There are possibilities other than maximization. One might, for example, claim that one have to achieve a certain level of welfare, but that there is no requirement to achieve more. Ethical egoism might also apply to things other than acts, such as rules or character traits. Since these variants are uncommon, and the arguments for and against them are largely the same as those concerning the standard version, we set them aside.

3. Rational Egoism

Rational egoism claims that it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be rational that it maximize one's self-interest. As with ethical egoism, there are variants which drop maximization or evaluate rules or character traits rather than actions. There are also variants which make the maximization of self-interest necessary but not sufficient, or sufficient but not necessary, for an action to be rational. Again, we set these aside.

Like ethical egoism, rational egoism needs arguments to support it. One might cite our most confident judgments about rational action and claim that rational egoism best fits these. The problem is that our most confident judgments about rational action seem to be captured by a different, extremely popular theory the instrumental theory of rationality. According to the instrumental theory, it is necessary and sufficient, for an action to be rational, that it maximize the satisfaction of one's preferences. Since psychological egoism seems false, it may be rational for me to make an uncompensated sacrifice for the sake of others, for this may be what, on balance, best satisfies my (strong, non-self-interested) preferences. This conflict with the instrumental theory is a major problem for rational egoism.

The rational egoist might reply that the instrumental theory is equally a problem for any standard moral theory that claims to give an account of what one ought rationally, or all things considered, to do. If, for example, a utilitarian claims that I have most reason to give to charity, since that maximizes the general happiness, I could object that giving to charity cannot be rational given my particular preferences, which are for things other than the general happiness.

Conclusion

Prospects for psychological egoism are dim. Even if some version escapes recent empirical arguments, there seems little reason, once the traditional philosophical confusions have been noted, for thinking it is true. At best it is a logical possibility, like some forms of scepticism.

Ethical egoists do best by defending rational egoism instead.

Rational egoism faces objections from arbitrariness, Nagel and Parfit. These worries are not decisive. Given this, and given the historical popularity of rational egoism, one might conclude that it must be taken seriously. But there is at least reason to doubt the historical record. Some philosophers stressed the connection beween moral action and self-interest because they were concerned with motivation. It does not follow that self-interest is for them a normative standard. And many philosophers may have espoused rational egoism while thinking that God ensured that acting morally maximized one's self-interest. 

"Some were keen to stress that virtue must pay in order to give God a role. Once this belief is dropped, it is not so clear what they would have said." 

(Shaver 1999 ch. 4).(Shaver, R. 1999, Rational Egoism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)

Advertise An Ethical Product

Kedai Kaca Mata Hitam

Kedai Kaca Mata Hitam is an Oakley Malaysia online sunglasses collector.
Kedai Kaca Mata Hitam was established as a company since 2010.
All our Oakley Sunglasses are directly ordered from USA.
Kedai Kaca Mata Hitam guarantees all Oakley Sunglasses are 100% AUTHENTIC and BRAND NEW IN BOX
We provide the 1-year warranty with an official  receipt.

DELIVERY SERVICE:

Save your time & money with our FREE POSLAJU DELIVERY NATIONWIDE.

Cash On Delivery within Kuala Lumpur.

PAYMENT METHOD:

MAYBANK : Bank Deposit / Transfer

MINIOPTICS : 562508509938

PAYPAL @ CREDIT CARD : By Request Only

CHECKOUT AND TRANSACTION PROCESS :

Once payment has been made before 3pm,we will dispatch the item immediately via POSLAJU.

Also after payment has been made,please email / message us your full name and address.

We will provide a tracking number once we have delivered the package.

You should receive the item within 1-2 working days,

We provide an official Kedai Kaca mata Hitam Receipt & Paper Bag upon purchase.

CONTACT US:

Kedai Kaca Mata Hitam

Jalan Pelangi 12, Taman Pelangi, 

51100 Kuala Lumpur, 

Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur

(HP 24 Hours): 016-7701302

(Office 10am-10pm): 03-26309735 

Email: abangchiktrading@gmail.com

WebSite: http://www.kacamatahitam.com

What Is Corporate Governance?

Corporate Governance is the system of rules, practices and processes by which a company is directed and controlled. Corporate governance essentially involves balancing the interests of the many stakeholders in a company - these include its shareholders, management, customers, suppliers, financiers, government and the community. Since corporate governance also provides the framework for attaining a company's objectives, it encompasses practically every sphere of management, from action plans and internal controls to performance measurement and corporate disclosure.

Corporate governance became a pressing issue following the 1992 introduction of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the U.S., which was ushered in to restore public confidence in companies and markets after accounting fraud bankrupted high-profile companies such as Enron and WorldCom.

(http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporategovernance.asp#axzz2LjXgGBoR)

Most companies strive to have a high level of corporate governance. These days, it is not enough for a company to merely be profitable and it also needs to demonstrate good corporate citizenship through environmental awareness, ethical behavior and sound corporate governance practices.

For example in 2010 Nestle has won the award for Distinction Award for Corporate Governance, after successfully achieving an A+ rating equivalent to a score of more than 80%. The recognition is one of several Nestlé Malaysia has received for excellence in corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in the past 12 months.

One of Nestle Corporate Governance project is "Making Banana Chips". The ‘Empowering Women in Setiu Wetlands’ project was set up in one of the poorest districts in the state of Terengganu, to raise awareness among local women of their natural environment while supporting them to work together to increase their income.

Others example, in August the Company was honoured with an Asia Responsible Entrepreneurship Award (AREA) for a sustainable community development programme it created in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Malaysia.

Why Business Ethics Consider Oxymoron?

An oxymoron (plural oxymora or oxymorons) (from Greek ὀξύμωρον, "sharp dull") is a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms. Oxymora appear in a variety of contexts, including inadvertent errors such as ground pilot and literary oxymorons crafted to reveal a paradox.


The most common form of oxymoron involves an adjective-noun combination of two words. For example, the following line from Tennyson's Idylls of the King contains two oxymora:
"And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron)

Calling "business ethics" an oxymoron rightly recognizes that ethics is a challenge. This much is true. That said, I think that this cliche also betrays a deep error in the way that many think about ethics in business. This error can be costly for business and it should be cleared up once and for all.

Calling "business ethics" an oxymoron conveys the misguided assumption that ethical commitment and conduct have to be 100% in order to be valid. In other words, if you're going to be ethical you have to be a pious. Like being pregnant, being ethical is thought to be an all-or-nothing proposition: you either are or you aren't.

It's certainly not bad to strive for ethical perfection, but it can be very destructive to insist upon it. Demanding 100% ethical perfection can have the unintended reverse consequence of discouraging people from trying to be ethical at all. When faced with the impossible, sometimes people just give up.

The hard realities of business require give-and-take among people as they strive for pragmatic solutions. These solutions aren't always perfect, but they often represent the best we can achieve. So, we shouldn't give up, by saying it is impossible to join "business" and "ethics," simply because it is sometimes hard to put our ethics into practice.

The examples for oxymoron is cigarettes. There are several issues under product ethics which are harmful product, quality deterioration, planned obsolescence, brand similarity, counterfeit merchandise, deceptive packaging, and product endorsement. Companies that sells cigarettes are under unethical product practice because they sell harmful products.

There are about four thousand harmful chemicals in a single cigarette. There are many casualties resulted from smoking and other chronic diseases such as lungs and mouth cancers, stroke and many more diseases resulted from smoking. However, government could not abolish the selling of cigarettes because it provides a lot of profit towards the Malaysian’s economy and there are also politics aspects that are tangled in selling cigarettes.

Definition of Business Ethics

Business ethics can be defined as written and unwritten codes of principles and values that govern decisions and actions within a company. In the business world, the organization’s culture sets standards for determining the difference between good and bad decision making and behavior. In the most basic terms, a definition for business ethics boils down to knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to do what is right. The phrase 'business ethics' can be used to describe the actions of individuals within an organization, as well as the organization as a whole.

(http://business.lovetoknow.com/wiki/A Definition for Business Ethics)

Importance of Running Business Ethically:

Running a business ethically is good for business. However, "business ethics" if properly interpreted means the standards of conduct of individual business people, not necessarily the standards of business as a whole.

Business leader are expected to run their business as profitably as they can. A successful and profitable business in itself can be a tremendous contributor toward the common good of society. But if business leaders or department managers spend their time worrying about “doing good” for society, they will divert attention from their real objective which is profitability and running an efficient and effective organization.

Applying ethics in business makes good sense. A business that behaves ethically induces other business associates to behave ethically as well. If a company (or a manager) exercises particular care in meeting all responsibilities to employees, customers and suppliers it usually is awarded with a high degree of loyalty, honesty, quality and productivity. For examples, employees who are treated ethically will more likely behave ethically themselves in dealing with customers and business associates. A supplier who refuses to exploit its advantage during a seller's market retains the loyalty and continued business of its customers when conditions change to those of a buyer's market. A company that refuses to discriminate against older or handicapped employees often discovers that they are fiercely loyal, hard working and productive.

It is my firm belief that a “good man or woman” who steadfastly tries to be ethical (i.e. to do the “right thing", to make appropriate ethical decisions, etc.) somehow always overtakes his immoral or amoral counterpart in the long run. A plausible explanation of this view on ethical behavior is that when individuals operate with a sense of confidence regarding the ethical soundness of their position, their mind and energies are freed for maximum productivity and creativity. On the other hand, when practicing unethical behavior, the individual finds it necessary to engage in exhausting subterfuge, resulting in diminished effectiveness and reduced success.

The best way to promote ethical behavior is by setting a good personal example. Teaching an employee ethics is not always effective. One can explain and define ethics to an adult, but understanding ethics does not necessarily result in behaving ethically. Personal values and ethical behavior is taught at an early age by parents and educators.

I am quite certain that well-educated business professional like Kenneth Lay, Martha Stewart, Dennis Kozlowski or the former CEO of General Motors who received a multi-million dollar salary and bonus package in 1987 at a time when the company was closing plants and was laying off thousands of people know and understand ethics. They either were too far removed from the “nitty gritty” that ethical standards did not resonate with them or they simply did not care.

People at the top of an organization are expected to share the burden of cost reductions and belt-tightening during difficult times. Senior executives of companies who freeze their salaries or take a personal pay cut in a problematic year rather than lay off employees to cut costs deserve our utmost respect. However, this does not mean that a company should lose flexibility in adjusting its cost structure during bad economical times, replace old factories by new ones, or change technology in ways that would require fewer people to do the work. Decisions like that should be made with empathy and support (financially) to those who will be affected by it.