Ethical Egosim and Sentiment: Examing Decision-Making in the Grey Area Essay

If at that place were one bad-tempered(prenominal) good possibility that would oecumenicly fit all(prenominal) situations, clean-living philosophy would be an open/shut racing shell. However, that b arely isnt how ethical theories work. While, almost may have signifi stoogetly more honorable excellence than opposites on a scale of universal practise, there are some situations where relativism comes into range when deciphering which speculation scoop out suits a devoted situation. The relativism referred to here is of a soulal nature. A person is the sum of their experiences and actions.Additionally, even if a person has a straight-pointing moral compass, these last(prenominal) life experiences, combined with their current situation, flock weigh heavily in finale making the godliness of a decision when coming issues that lay in a greyish area. Take, for example, the story of an uneducated person from an disadvantaged covering fireground, whos only foresee able pass off at bettering their life is exceling in a specific sport they have a natural talent for. They have institutionalise themselves to this sport and have trained tirelessly.though they have the ability to place at a high rank, they have neer been able to win a zip that enabled them to arrest a name for them self-importance and launch their career. They keep coming miserly to winning, exclusively ultimately, always end up falling short by an inch. consider this person was going to be competing in a major(ip) event, which if won, would yield a large cash care for, and would launch them into the play up via an endorsement deal with a major sportswear company. Now, imagine that a sports trainer approaches the jock with a tempting proposition.The trainer informs the jock that he has a youthful performance supplement that give dramatically improve the athletes performance. The trainer tells the athlete that the supplement has been tested on animals and has, thus furthermost, been proven safe. The trainer informs the athlete that the substance is non on the constitute of banned performance enhancing substances that competitions test for forwards an athlete par proposes in an event. The trainer because tells the athlete, that all he wants is $5,000 of the winnings. If the athlete wins, hell owe the trainer $5,000 if he loses, hell owe nothing.While both(prenominal) jam Rachaels Theory of self-concern and clean-living Skepticism, and David Humes Theory of moral Sentiment are applicable to this scenario, Humes theory is, decisively, the most ethical theory of choice in application to this fact situation. There are a pas de deux of issues that come into play when making moral judgments about this situation. First, the athlete k flats that performance enhancing substances are banned in competitions. The fact that this fussy substance is not yet banned, is not proof of its acceptability for use.Instead, it only shows that the substance is so new, it has yet to be recognized and put on the itemisation of banned substances. Given time, it volition assuredly be on that list. Thus, the athlete knows that victorious the substance to give him an advantage in winning would be looked down upon, and is chiefable, in principal. Second is the issue of personal circumstance. This particular athletes ability to prosper is contingent on his success at making a name for himself in his sport. If he fails to do so, he will never foreseeably get a branching up and achieve monetary stability.The here aft(prenominal) of his life, as far as all foreseeable circumstances are concerned, attend on him winning this cash prize and endorsement contract. To him, these two things may make the difference between him having a financial springboard with which to better his situation, versus being stuck in a multi-generational financial cycle of poverty. The application of crowd together Rachels Theory of Egoism and Moral Skepticism t o the aforementioned scenario, specifically focuses on the ethical egoist dowery of Rachels argument.The ethical egoist argues that deal ought to act nevertheless out of egocentrism that season humans have the message to make decisions altruistically, there is no antecedent that we should do so. This reasoning simplifies the decision-making for the athlete. Clearly, winning is in his best interest. Thus, pickings the substance is the best decision. However, in order for this theory to succeed, the person must conceal their actions while supporting others to act differently. Essentially, he must be a disingenuous, hypocritical, and manipulative liar. If the world were in effect(p) of people like this, we would back-stab each other into extinction.This is where the theory of the ethical conceit go apart in regard to being a universal theory. If everyone acted solely with self-interest, partnership wouldnt be sustainable. There has to be some sort of rule in place in regard to flavor out for each-others best interests in order for society to function properly. David Humes Theory of Moral Sentiment achieves the poise of being able to make ethical judgments that are as altruistic as possible, while muted expression at each decision on a case by case flat coat before deeming it ethical or unethical.Hume poses the question of why one action can be sort out in some circumstances, yet haywire in others while the act itself is the said(prenominal) in both cases. It comes down to sentiment, or ones personal feelings about the circumstances environ an act. Once again, take into consideration, the originally declared scenario concerning the athlete. Under Humes theory, the ethical decision would be whatever the person mat up was proper, if, but only if, those circumstances make it morally acceptable. Take for instance, this same story, but with an athlete who is from a sluttish family.If he doesnt become an athlete, he still has the viable option of attending college and move another stable career that will provide him with a good life. The athlete from the well-to-do family has options, and his future stability is not hinged on being a no-hit athlete. Thus, if he chose to take the supplement in this scenario, it would be an unethical decision. However, when the scenario is applied to the barren athlete whose future stability is hinged on his success as an athlete, the decision to take the supplement is no longer unethical.It is, after all, technically legal to take for competitions. Thus, hes not technically doing anything wrong. Neither the well-to-do athlete, nor the impoverished athlete would, technically, be doing anything wrong by taking the substance. This is where the grey area comes into play. We have an action, that if connected by a financially well-to-do athlete would be considered selfish and unsportsman-like. Yet, if the same act were committed by an impoverished athlete, few people could hold back empathy an d not be able to apologise him slack for his choice.This same act is now one thats deemed acceptable, ground merely on a distinct compulsive of circumstances. It doesnt mean that this an ultimate right, in the discussion of rights and wrongs simply, that when discussing gray area issues, the moral of sentiment applies heavily in deciphering the right or wrongful nature of an action. In conclusion, we can see that while James Rachels theory of ethical egoism makes deciphering a verdict on right and wrong simple, the act of making choices based solely on self-interest is not sustainable for society.All in all, deciphering the morality of a choice comes down to the particular circumstances that elicit an emotional response. When looking at issues critically, there is no fact-based point that clearly defines right from wrong in the action. However, because of our sentimental side, we are able to free certain actions that would otherwise be considered wrong. Thus, David Humes Theory of Moral Sentiment has far better results when applied to this particular case