Final answer:
Ethical egoism is the theory that individuals always have a moral obligation to act in their own self-interest. This can lead to debates about whether such behavior is beneficial for society at large or if it overly simplifies moral judgments. Moral pluralism, proposed by thinkers like William David Ross, offers a more nuanced perspective, acknowledging the complexity of ethical decision-making.
Step-by-step explanation:
The theory that people always have a moral obligation to do only what is in their own self-interest is known as ethical egoism. There are variations of this ethical stance, namely strong ethical egoism and weak ethical egoism. Strong ethical egoism holds that individuals should always act in their own greatest good, while weak ethical egoism allows for the pursuit of one's own interest without deeming it always wrong to put others' interests first. It's crucial to differentiate ethical egoism from psychological egoism, which suggests that all human actions are motivated by self-interest, even when they appear altruistic.
It's worth noting that ethical egoism has received several objections. One argues that if everyone were to pursue their own self-interest, it would not necessarily lead to a better off society, as true egoism is unconcerned with collective well-being. Moreover, ethical egoism's extreme individualism could hinder the formation of principles for making moral decisions, as it implies that morality should always coincide with personal happiness, discounting actions taken purely because they are right.
Philosophers like Sir William David Ross have criticized reductionist ethical theories for oversimplifying morality and have proposed moral pluralism as an alternative, suggesting that moral decisions often involve weighing competing duties, reflecting the complex nature of real-life ethical dilemmas.