Two important issues from the second chapter concern the nature of motivation for any action (moral or otherwise) and the relation between the means and ends of our actions. In regards to the nature of human motivation the doctrine of psychological egoism, if true, has significant consequences for both consequentialist and deontological theories of ethics. In regards to means/ends reasoning one famous defense of Utilitarianism holds that not only do the "ends" in fact justify the "means" they are the only thing that could. According to some critics of Utilitarianism this fact has some troubling entailments regarding the relations between basic rights and morals.

Your task this week is to make at least two posts. First, I want you to make an original post that: 1) Both outlines the differences between psychological and ethical egoism and weighs in on whether or not you think human actions are ever selfless and why; and, 2) Takes up the plausibility of Utilitarianism's stand on "end/means" relations and why a deontologist might claim that this view runs afoul of some moral intuitions regarding so called basic rights. Second, you must provide at least one reply post critical of a colleague's view.

Textbook: Business Ethics, William Shaw, seventh edition, Thomson Wadsworth Publishing 2010