Ethical Egoism And Utilitarianism

John’s actions of first viewing, then photographing her undressing victimize Jane, even if she never becomes aware of the violation of her privacy. This behavior exemplifies the differences between deontological and teleological ethical systems. While deontological ethics would immediately condemn John’s actions based on “the inherent nature of the act being judged” (Pollock, pp. 35, 2017), a teleological or consequential approach focuses on if the “ends justifies the means” (Pollock, pp. 38, 2017). If a restriction is placed on moral interpretations, forcing one to adhere to a consequential belief system, a weighing of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ must be calculated. Accordingly, John must use a teleological or consequential approach to rationalize

The theory of egoism demands “that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own action” (Moseley, n.d). John’s actions initially are entirely motived by his own self-interest without regard to the effect on Jane, however, he excuses such actions because “Egoism may license actions which are good for an individual even if detrimental to the general welfare” (Maston, 2018). Likewise, while Egoism is how John rationalizes the initial viewing, Utilitarianism stresses focus on if the ‘good’ outweighs the ‘bad’ (Pollock, 2017). Once again, John defends his actions that his gain of good is greater because Jane’s lack of knowledge of being victimized equates to no wrong. Sadly, under Utilitarianism, John’s ‘good’ would be amplified the more he shared the pictures feeding others teleological views of Hedonism which suggest “the philosophy that pleasure is the most important pursuit of mankind, and that individuals should strive to [maximize] their own total pleasure (net of any pain or suffering)” (Maston, 2018). This flawed reasoning relies on the belief that one must be aware they are a victim in order to be a victim, and even then, if more benefit from the victimization then it is

Scanlon, supports a stance that “if we do not relate to another person in a way that respects her value as a person by taking her interests into account in our moral deliberations, we have wronged her” (Finneron-Burns, 2016). Thus, by John not taking into account how his actions effect Jane, he devalues her as a person making his actions morally wrong. Jane has a fundamental right to privacy while undressing. Contractualism does not directly condemn John’s actions but condemns the occurrence of his actions without Jane’s input. According to Scanlon the reason this is morally wrong, “is not that the effects of the actions they rule out would be objectively bad things to have happen, but rather that individuals have, personally, good reason to object to being affected in these ways” (pp. 6-7,