Ethics Argument Essay

The central claim of the given quote discusses questions of Ethics by giving the following proposition- the only morally correct choice that an individual has is that of making sacrifices of self-interest for the larger interest of the community i.e. a group of humans other than oneself. Only if the individual puts the interests of others above his own will he be considered morally correct. Now, we must state the unsaid premises that may have brought the author to these conclusions and analyze them individually-

P1- There is a definitive interpretation of what (actions) is good for different individuals and what is bad for them.

P2- The good of a group of individuals (community) is defined as that course of actions which maximises the sum

Even if this holds true, another problem arises -time.

For instance, say you wish to go for a jog at 4 in the morning in the winter chill. At that point of time, if asked about the desirability of the prospect of jogging the answer would be clearly negative. However, what if I were to tell you that you have diabetes and the jog is vital for your long term health. What would your answer be then? Clearly affirmative.

MY VIEW- This approach is what I call the “method of scaling” which means including “the scale of time” to determine the moral nature of actions. What may seem wrong (due to being undesirable) at one moment may seem right (desirable) at another. However, we must assume that people are fully capable of using their cognitive functions such as using intuitive reasoning to determine the future results of current

Q1. But what of the situation when two individual goods are in conflict? What would be the ethical principles applied in such a scenario?

A1. This question can be answered effectively by considering our central claim: ensuring the maximization of the sum of all good (assuming that two goods may have different degrees and that a similar good will be equal in magnitude for all people).

Example-

Let’s say there is a situation in which two students are competing for a spot on the Indian “team for the Philosophy Olympiad. Let us assume that there is a significant difference in their abilities. Now the student who is the weaker one tries to maximize his individual good by “cheating” on the exam. This student then qualifies and does not win anything at the International Olympiad. Upon being questioned about the morality of his actions, he says that they are completely justified since they were done to maximize individual good and consequently collective