J O - Student B

J O - Student B
Discussion 2


Ethical Egoism in the theory that putting yourself first is the moral thing to do and states that one should do whatever benefits them the most.[1] Viewing this from a social standpoint this theory may do more harm than good because everyone is putting their own needs and best interest ahead of others. Strick adherence to Ethical Egoism limits an individual thinking and ability to aid and assist the needs of the public. Ethical Egoism is for the sole benefit of one’s self by seeing what is best for ones own mental and physical wellbeing. At times, this line of thinking can be unavoidable. By placings ones needs of a required day of rest after undergoing a time of extensive mental and physical stress individuals are working to prevent what could become disastrous outcomes and promote their own wellbeing. Christian revelational Ethics on the other hand find their beginning in the Bible and are strengthened by meticulous and sensitive thinking. The Christian revelational Ethic involves “careful interpertation and logical application and can address any possible ethical dilemma.”[2] Holding to this view leads to Scriptures unbiased moral reasoning taking priority over and individuals biased wants, desires, and feelings when making moral and ethical decisions. Truly living this our prevents an egocentric type of person and leads to a Believer who seeks to live with the mind of Christ that will at times care of their own interest but see others as more important and look out for what is best for them. (Phil 2:1-8) Christian revelational ethics uses an individual’s moral code that has been developed by Scripture in combining with God’s will to work towards better individuals, communities, and cultures.

            Ethical Egoism and Christian revelational ethics do not hold to any common thoughts or beliefs on the surface. When looking at how these two systems could relate to reach other the topic of self defense could be discussed. The egocentric side of an individual will defend themselves at all cost and not allow any harm to come to themselves. From the Christian revelational ethics point of view while Believers are instructed to live peaceably if possible, self-defense is permitted even if harm comes to the other person there is not guilt associated with defending one’s self. (Rom 12:18, Exo 22:2-3) These two Ethical systems differ greatly; ethical egoism is about self and personal interest while Christian revelational ethics is about the betterment of the individual and community. As humans we have a natural tendency to be egocentric and think about “Me,” “My,” and “I” and do whatever it takes to lookout for “number one” as long as “number one” is ourselves. Christian revelational ethics on the other hand speaks directly against this and calls us to do the opposite.

            Christian revelational ethics has a convincing case because it combines aspects of multiple manmade metaethics with God’s will and unchangeable moral character to lead to an ethical system that can be applied to all people. Murder is the simplest of examples to use for application. Regardless of geographical location and culture murder is viewed as wrong. At the same time, the immorality of murder correlates not only with God’s written law but his unchanging moral character revealed through that law. When looking at the needs of society and how best to meet those needs Christian revelational ethics uses parts of utilitarianism to determine how to treat needs. Divine command theory is like Christian revelational ethics. Both incorporate concepts of God’s commands and His moral character. The difference is that Christian revelational ethics incorporate aspects of other ethical theories to develop a practical application of those commands and character for the benefit of not just the individual believer but all people regardless of faith. Ethical egoism limits one to bettering self over society.

[1] MICHAEL SCOTT. JONES, MORAL REASONING: an Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong (Place of publication not identified: KENDALL HUNT, 2017),56.

[2] Ibid.,128