Universal Ethical Egoism Theory - Coursework Example

Hunger Games INTRODUCTION Hunger is a topic that is getting momentum globally. With about 900 million people affected the situation is getting out of hand for many states especially the developing nations. One of the casing scenarios is the argument that even some of the developed countries around the world eat more than their fair share of high water and energy consuming foods. It is argued that a country like Australia has its population largely feeding on beef than it is expected and this has led to people, animal right activists, and sociologists to engage each other over the topic that meat consumption is no longer ethical. Two ethical theories relating to this case study are Universal Ethical Egoism and Confucian Role Ethics. The theories are relevant to the case study such that the universal ethical egoism allows individuals to exclusively carry out their own interest and any decision made should not be a result of coercions. On the hand the Confucian Role Ethics theory allows individuals to engage freely as they argue out their cases (Sandøe & Christiansen, 2008). UNIVERSAL ETHICAL EGOISM Universal ethical egoism theory states that it is a perspective doctrine that all individuals have to act from their own self-interests. The application of the theory to the case study is that whether ethical or not, individuals should be allowed to eat meat. The theory supports the argument that it is unethical to consume meat because of the cruelty the animals are likely to safe and also the environmental dilemma that comes with the consumption of meat. From the theory, the partiality not to feed on meat is because of the act of killing the animals is in itself a messy business and this cuts short the life of animals slaughtered. The deviance that comes with the killing of the animals is a harmful act in substitute for culinary desires that people always want to fulfill. The theory also supports the idea of those who argue that it is ethical to eat meat so long as animal welfare and ethnic traditions surrounding meat consumption are maintained. Here individuals are allowed to eat meat so long as it is associated with their specific cultural traditions. Such communities find it a norm to feed on the specific meat as a way of celebrating their culture, because of the celebrations of such cultures that promote meat eating then morally slaughtering the animals for meat consumption can be said to be defensible (Hinman & Lawrence 2013). STRENGTH OF THE THEORY The strength of the theory that comes out clearly is that it comes out with a philosophical view. It tells people how they ought to behave and it does not necessarily describe how they should behave and react to situations. In line with the case study, the ethical egoism puts people at free will to either describe meat eating as either ethical or unethical depending on their own understanding but not relating to the views that others hold. Those who find it ethical that they should feed on meat so long as animal welfare and ethnic traditions surrounding meat consumption are maintained are at will do so. Societies that have learned that eating meat is simply a custom and a habit that people have developed and acquired from generation to generation since time immemorial are allowed to continue with such acts (Jenkins 2003). Individuals who also consider meat eating as unethical because of the cruelty exposed to the animals and environmental dilemmas are at will to hold such views. WEAKNESS OF THE THEORY The theory has a major weakness in that at times the ethical egoism makes individuals differ from their ethical positions in regard to views they hold about things, situations or other people in society. This puts people to believe and hold what is contrary to their positions. In line with the theory it can be argued that even though if the animals are treated well on the farms where they are kept, in that they are fed very well as nature requires and at the same time allow the animals to express their character freely then in the end when slaughtered for meat it should not arise as a cruel act. One may consider terminating the animals' life as an act of cruelty a but since he believes in the theory that what he does is right then he will hold the position that it is not ethical to feed on meat (Jenkins 2003). DEBATES OF THE ETHICAL EGOISM THEORY From the analysis above it comes out clear that the theory is relativist. It allows for free judgment for the situation at hand by those who use it to argue out the case study. The implication of the theory to the case study is that it allows both parties to act in their own interests, as those who hold the view that it is unethical to feed on meat because of the environmental dilemma and animal cruelty involved to do so in their own interests without viewing the other side of the argument. (Jenkins 2003). Similarly, those of the opinion that eating meat is ethical to continue to serve their interests at free will so long that the situations are not contrary to what they stand for. CONFUCIAN ROLE ETHICS The theory is all about the idea that since people are born and brought up in family relations, then they will hold and agree to situations depending on a combination of native instinct and cultivated cognitive, moral, and religious learning from both what they knew initially and what they learn from the interaction with other people. In regard to the case study, some people may find it ethical to feed on meet provided the primary socialization that exists between animals kept for meat and human beings supports the fact that it is ethical to feed on meat so long as animal welfare is maintained. They may even consider that it is genetically and socially important to eat meat as a way of balancing their dietary having learned and believed so from childhood years (Ames 2010). In the event the same individuals interact with other people and get to learn that meat eating is unethical because of the cruelty the animals are exposed to, they are likely to change their positions. STRENGTH OF THE THEORY The theory has a major strength in that it allows inclusiveness and egalitarian among people. It also focuses on bringing and creating happiness for the entire community by believing in the different perceptions that different individuals hold on issues. In relation to the case that it clearly comes out those individuals who have a different perspective on meat eating are likely to change their positions depending on what they learn from others and experiences in their lives. The theory encourages consideration of alternative in people's live and this is likely to make the society find it both ethical and unethical to feed on meat depending on the scenarios involved. The theory supports a social morality among people as it does not rule out helping others. Those who hold the view that it is ethical to feed on meat so long as the animal welfare and ethnic traditions surrounding meat consumption are maintained are able to advise those of contrary view thus allow them to all agree to their views so long as it is of moral choice and independent of reasoning (Ames2010). WEAKNESS OF THE THEORY The weakness that comes out clearly from the theory is that it allows contradictory positions by individuals without having facts but only beliefs and perception of other people. The theory allows individuals who hold different views about the case study to easily change their positions and stand. This does not allow individuals to undertake things because of their perspective doctrine which they believe in but based on what the social class thinking of what it ought to be. With regard to our case study the theory does not provide ready answers to the ethical questions raised but allows the needs of individual to be sacrificed, just to allow other belief in as a way of ensuring conformity (Li 2014). DEBATES OF CONFUCIAN ROLE ETHICS THE THEORY From the theory, it is clear that it promotes free will among individuals of the society. Cultivated cognitive, moral, aesthetic and religious learning of individuals from both what they knew initially and the interaction with other people enables people to have an open mind about the views held by others in their society. It has no exceptions to rules and therefore allows for individual values to be considered when making choices. CONCLUSION From the two theories, it comes out clearly that the case study has ethical issues that should be put into consideration. The universal ethical egoism and Confucian role ethics theory differ in most ways that the latter allows the sacrificial ideas that individuals hold about issues as opposed to the first one which allows for individual perspectives to take center stage (Sandøe & Christiansen 2008). The ethical solution to the dilemma is to allow people to use the universal ethical egoism act to deal with the case study so that those with the view that it is not ethical to feed on meet because of the environmental dilemma and animal cruelty involved should continue believing so. They should then allow the other group with a different view to consider meat-eating ethical so long as they believe in the perspective and are acting in their self-interests. Reference Hinman, L. M., & Hinman, Lawrence M. (2013). Ethics: A pluralistic approach to moral theory. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Pub Co. Ames, R. T. (2010). Confucian role ethics: A vocabulary. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. In Li, C. (2014). Moral cultivation and Confucian character: Engaging Joel J. Kupperman. Jenkins, J. (2003). Ethics and religion. Oxford: Heinemann Educational. Sandøe, P., & Christiansen, S. B. (2008). Ethics of animal use. Oxford: Blackwell. Read More