Essay Undergraduate 942 words

Competing Ethical Claims: Need, Egoism, and Moral Worth

~5 min read

Abstract

This essay addresses a series of applied ethics questions covering competing moral claims in a hiring scenario, the relationship between divine command theory and secular ethics, the tension between moral worth and personal self-actualization, and the distinction between philosophical and psychological egoism. It also examines the moral obligations arising from marital trust and pre-marital infidelity. Drawing on thinkers such as Camus and Graham, the paper uses real-world scenarios to illustrate how ethical frameworks guide decision-making, and why purely self-interested or religiously grounded systems may be insufficient for resolving complex moral dilemmas.

📝 How to Write This Type of Paper Writing guide — click to expand

▼

What makes this paper effective

The paper grounds each abstract ethical concept in a concrete scenario, making philosophical distinctions accessible and immediately relevant.
It acknowledges counterarguments — for instance, noting that Rogini's illness may actually impede job performance, weakening her ethical claim despite genuine need.
The personal voice ("in my own life") adds credibility and demonstrates the author's ability to apply ethical frameworks reflexively rather than mechanically.

Key academic technique demonstrated

The paper employs comparative ethical analysis: it places multiple competing frameworks (need-based ethics, divine command theory, egoism, social contract) side by side within each question and evaluates their relative strengths and weaknesses. This technique requires the writer to clearly define each position before adjudicating between them, which is a hallmark of sound philosophical argumentation.

Structure breakdown

The paper is organized as a series of discrete question-and-answer responses, each roughly one paragraph in length. Despite this fragmented format, a coherent thematic thread runs through the responses: the tension between self-interest and obligation to others. Each section builds on the prior by testing a different dimension of that tension — need versus merit, divine versus secular authority, self-development versus altruism, egoism versus genuine altruism, and personal trust versus social norms.

Competing Ethical Claims in Hiring Decisions

The competing ethical claims regarding the hiring of the three workers are as follows: one candidate is assumed to be more in need because of an objective claim of financial hardship (Dinu); another subjectively feels more aggrieved because of reduced circumstances (Bishanno); and the third is seen as worse off because of her health status, even though she is neither as poor nor as unhappy as the other workers (Rogini). Implicit in this argument is the assumption that need, rather than the objective qualifications of the workers, is the most important factor in deciding who gets the job.

Of the three claims, Bishanno's is the weakest. Yes, he may be unhappy now, but he will eventually have to acclimate to his new circumstances. Rogini is ill, but her illness may impede her ability to do the job, which would ultimately not advance the happiness of anyone. Thus Dinu's claim seems the strongest, based on the ethical framework of the decision-maker. For a helpful overview of how distributive justice principles apply to such need-based decisions, the philosophical literature on fairness and allocation provides useful context.

Divine Command Theory Versus Secular Ethics

If what is right is God's will, then apparently negative actions and consequences are acceptable if they are willed by God. Theoretically, even killing someone could be viewed as a moral action if it was "God's will." Codes of ethics, in contrast, stand independent of a belief in God. While ethical systems may be influenced by the religious traditions of the people who generated them, a belief in God is not necessary for an individual to behave morally.

In fact, Camus viewed all ethical and religious systems as inherently absurd constructions — a way for human beings to make meaning of essentially meaningless existences. However, by acknowledging the constructed nature of ethics, we are able to find a sense of peace and even freedom. This absurdist perspective suggests that secular moral frameworks are not weakened by their human origins; rather, they may be all the more meaningful because they are consciously chosen.

3 Locked Sections · 440 words remaining

Moral Worth and the Limits of Self-Actualization · 155 words

"Tension between moral obligation and personal self-improvement"

Philosophical Egoism and Psychological Egoism · 140 words

"Distinguishing egoism types and the limits of altruism"

Marital Trust and the Ethics of Concealment · 145 words

"Moral duty to disclose pre-marital infidelity to a partner"

You’re 36% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.

130,000+ paper examples AI writing assistant Citation generator Cancel anytime

Key Concepts in This Paper

Need-Based Ethics Divine Command Theory Secular Ethics Moral Worth Self-Actualization Philosophical Egoism Psychological Egoism Marital Trust Altruism Absurdism