Psychological Egoism And Ethical Egoism Summary And Response Essay Help

I have always looked at myself as an unselfish person with a good sense of empathy towards my friends and other people. I have always thought about egoism as something solely negative. That was before I knew the true meaning and concept of the word. Now I am no longer so sure; is it possible to be an absolute altruist? Is it possible to keep going on an absolute altruistic line of life without any egoistic subsidiary interference?

Psychological egoism is a human beings factual motivation in life. Psychological egoism builds around that our intended actions are always controlled by our own interests, wishes and motives. We are motivated by a wish to accomplish a sort of self-fulfillment, meaning that our actions in all aspects of our lives (from buying a sandwich because we are hungry, to studying for an exam to get a good grade) are all done because it is for our own beneficial interests, wishes and motives.

The definition for ethical egoism is basically ‘how we ought to act’. Ethical egoism builds itself around the idea that the best way to promote collective reimbursement, is to follow self-interests. By always striving for our own personal self-fulfillment a person will better be able to promote what is in the best interest of the community, more so than always striving to promote the community’s interests. A person is able to hold a sociable role that supports the general public by taking care of his or her own well-being and self-interest first.

The relationship between psychological egoism and ethical egoism is very clear. Since ethical egoism states that the best way to promote the welfare of others is by promoting your own self-interest, they kind of go hand in hand. But they are different since psychological egoism focus only on self-fulfillment and self-interest. The term ego means self. A body without an ego is just empty, without a soul. To deny one’s own ego is to deny one’s own mental existence, which is naturally not good for one’s mental health. To have a good mental health involves being an integrated and harmonized human being. This anticipates that you are an egoist. Without good mental health and personal harmony one does not make the right choices for either yourself or the welfare of other people around you.

The word altruism was first used by the French philosopher, Auguste Comte. Every human beings moral purpose is to serve others well-being on the expense of your own values. Altruism considers personal interest as something negative. Self-interest is per definition unmoral. It seems like being an altruist is to go against one’s self and breaking the connection between actions and beliefs, interests, and moral thoughts. It seems that in the altruistic model one constantly is trying to please other people and letting other’s needs and interests control their own actions. By always doing this there will be a constant split between one’s actions and one’s ego, making it very hard to be a harmonized human being. Being raised in an altruistic way seems to like living in a constant conflict with one’s self. By living a life of constant conflict with one’s self, there must be a big chance of developing poor self-confidence and irrational guilt.

Guilt is something you experience when something is in conflict with your own moral belief. Rational guilt is to feel guilt when one actually harms others. That type of guilt is good, because it aids learning to show consideration when it comes to others and their feelings. But irrational guilt, feeling guilty when you have not done anything wrong, is never positive. By reflecting about altruism, the feeling that altruism can create guilt in times when one does not do what other people want becomes apparent. That could make it very hard to say no, which lead to situations of victimization and being taken advantage of. In many situations in life, it is important to have a self-defense to protect one ‘s self and interests. The concept of a self-defense will always be egoistic, and involves the sub consciousness sense what is right or wrong. If a person believes that it’s wrong to think about themselves and feel guilty to do acts that are in their own interests, it gets very hard to make the right decisions. It makes you self-destructive to feel irrational guilt all the time. One has no emotional support for your own actions. To have personal opinions, it’s necessary to have sub-conscious support. The sub-consciousness needs to work for the personal best interest, because if the sub-consciousness gives priority to other’s beliefs, it will increase one’s sensitivity to criticism. To be sensitive to criticism is the same as being sensitive to other people’s thoughts.

It might seem logical that collectivism and altruism are important values to collaborate socially. This is completely wrong. Social competence is a quality of the individual. To work socially is to work as an individual in relation to other people, and to work as an individual one needs to be an egoist. It is not possible to become social by denying one’s ego. Altruistic behavior makes it easier for other people to manipulate feelings and actions. Confidence anticipates that one can trust their own sub-consciousness. Insecurity is driven by a lack of support from the sub-conscious. An altruistic belief leads to being very influenced by other people’s beliefs, and becoming insecure in social situations. It is also hard to work socially, if one is sensitive to criticism, and feel irrational guilt. Altruism makes one a target of outside control, which makes a self-controlled life problematic.

In conclusion, there is little to no room for altruism where egoism dominates. Altruists get motivated by what other people believe is best, and it seems like they need to be part of a collective were they can agree with others and feel safe. By having this as a priority the world would not develop without egoism, because to gain full potential one needs a sense of inner motivation to reveal their talents and gain a knowledge of who they really are and of what they as a single person can become capable.

[supanova_question]

Family presence during CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) instant essay help

In a pre-hospital setting, there are few moments that are as intense as the events that take place when trying to save a life. Family presence during these resuscitation efforts has become an important and controversial issue in health care settings. Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a relatively new issue in healthcare. Before the advent of modern medicine, family members were often present at the deathbed of their loved ones. A dying person’s last moments were most often controlled by his or her family in the home rather than by medical personnel (Trueman, History of Medicine). Today, families are demanding permission to witness resuscitation events. Members of the emergency medical services are split on this issue, noting benefits but also potentially negative consequences to family presence during resuscitation efforts.

A new study has found that family members who observed resuscitation efforts were significantly less likely to experience symptoms of post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression than family members that did not. The results, published in an online article in The New England Journal of Medicine, entitled ‘Family Presence during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation,’ were the same regardless of the survival of the patient. The study involved 570 people in France whose family members were treated by emergency medical personnel at home. These EMS teams were unique in that they were comprised of a physician, a nurse trained in emergency medicine, and two emergency medical technicians. The study found that the presence of relatives did not affect the results of CPR, nor did it increase the stress levels of the emergency medical teams. Having family present also did not result in any legal claims after the incidents occured. While the unique limitations of the study warrant consideration, the results show a definite benefit in having families stay during CPR (Jabre Family Presence).

Historically, although parents of children have been allowed to be present for various reasons, relatives of adult patients have not. As medical practices change to increasingly involve family in the care of patients, growing numbers of emergency medical practitioners say that giving relatives the option of watching CPR can be a good idea. Several national organizations, including The American Heart Association, have revised their policies to call for giving family members the option of being present during CPR (AHA Guidelines for CPR). Witnessing CPR, say some emergency medical experts and family members, can take the mystery out of what could be a potentially terrifying experience. It can provide reassurance to family members that everything is being done to save their loved ones. It also can offer closure for relatives wanting to be with their family members until the last minute (Kirkland Lasting Benefit). Another benefit is that it shows people why reviving someone in cardiac arrest is much less likely than people assume from watching it being done on television (Ledermann Family Presence During). Family members who can truly understand what it means to ‘do everything possible’ can go on to make more informed decisions about end-of-life care for themselves or their families.

There are three perspectives on this issue- that of the emergency medical personnel providing care, the family, and the patients. The resistance on the part of the medical community to family presence during CPR stems from several different concerns. The most common concern among these is that family members, when faced with overwhelming fear, stress and grief, could disrupt or delay active CPR. Another concern raised by emergency medical personnel is that the realities of CPR may simply be too traumatic for loved ones, causing them to suffer more than they potentially would have if they had never witnessed the event. Some families share this view, citing the potential for extreme distress as a main reason for not wanting to witness resuscitation (Grice Study examining attitudes). Many emergency medical personnel also fear an increased risk of liability and litigation with family members present in the room (Fullbrook the Presence of Family). The worry is that errors can occur, inappropriate comments may be made, and the actions of the personnel involved may be misinterpreted. In an already tense situation, the awareness of the family could increase the anxiety of the personnel and create a greater potential for mistakes.

Another complication that arises from having families present during resuscitation attempts is that of patient confidentiality. The patient’s right to privacy should not be circumvented with implied consent. There is always the possibility that medical information previously unknown to the family may be revealed in the chaos of resuscitation. In addition, patient dignity, whether physical or otherwise, may become compromised (Fullbrook the Presence of Family). Beyond moral considerations, legal concerns regarding revealing patient information are real. This could become an even larger issue if there is no one available to screen witnesses, which could result in unrelated people gaining access to personal information. Eventually, a breach in confidentiality can lead to a breach in the confidence that the public has gained in pre-hospital emergency care.

Family presence during CPR in a pre-hospital setting remains a highly debatable topic. This could be largely due to the fact that the needs of the emergency medical providers and the rights of the patients can be at odds with the wishes of the family members. Although there are several possible reasons why family presence is not being welcomed into daily practice, one of the major reasons could be the lack of formal written policies that define the roles of families and providers placed into this situation. Bringing family members into a situation where CPR is being performed on a loved one should not happen haphazardly. It should happen with careful concern and support for everyone involved. Policies and protocols, defined by experienced personnel, can provide legal and emotional support. They can also potentially help ease anxiety by defining expectations and placing responsibility in the hands of people who are experienced enough to know how to handle the situation appropriately. The policies and protocols should address the basic needs of all people involved. Five basic needs should be addressed:

1. The number of people allowed to be present

2. Which relatives should be allowed to be present (age, relationship, etc.)

3. The role of the family members present and what is expected of them.

4. The place where the family should remain during the duration of CPR.

5. The formal wishes of the patient- written as a directive like a living will.

An important component of this is available, trained staff that can prepare the family members for what they will witness, support them through the event, and then direct them after the event’s conclusion.

The American Heart Association states that the goals of cardiopulmonary resuscitation are, ‘to preserve life, restore health, relieve suffering, limit disability, and respect the individual’s decisions rights and privacy’ (AHA Guidelines for CPR). The practice of offering family members the opportunity to be present during CPR is a controversial ethical issue in emergency medical services. While the results of the study published on this topic in The New England Journal of Medicine clearly show no negative side effects from having families present during resuscitation attempts, the limitations of the study lend to the need for more research before it could be universally accepted.

[supanova_question]

Respondeat Superior extended essay help biology

Legal claims that derive from a situation where there are claims of negligence can sometimes involve an entity other than the neglectful parties. In certain circumstances employers are fully responsible for their employees, and the tasks they perform during working hours. During the course of this paper, the doctrine of respondeat superior will be defined and explained. Two case studies in which the doctrine was applied will also be analyzed to determine if it was applied correctly.

Respondeat superior is a legal theory that holds employers responsible for any negligent or harmful act performed by an employee during the commission of their employment duties (Thornton, 2010). The Maryland Supreme Court in 1951 was the first court to utilize respondeat superior in a court case involving a question of employer liability (Burns, 2011). This doctrine is important as it holds employers liable in court cases where one of its employees does harm to an individual. Vicarious liability and indirect liability are two base concepts that make-up respondeat superior (Thornton, 2010). Respondeat superior shows that the employer did not have to be responsible for the employee???s negligent behavior, in the form of improper training or instruction to perform harmful acts, in order for the employer to be held legally responsible.

In the case of Valle v. City of Houston, the police force was sued for excessive force and an illegal search in an attempt to remove an individual from his parent???s home (Nicholl & Kelly, 2012). The situation stemmed from a man, Omar Esparza, barricading himself in his parent???s home and refusing to come out (p. 285). After a long police standoff, the SWAT team was ordered to forcefully enter the home and remove Mr. Esparza (p. 285). The SWAT team utilized taser gun and bean bag ammunition in an attempt to subdue Mr. Esparza after they felt he posed a physical threat by wielding a hammer, but as those attempts failed the suspect was fatally wounded when an officer fired his weapon (p. 286). Shortly after the incident the mother was allowed into the home, and she reported no visible evidence that her son was possession of a hammer (p. 286). The court found that the city was not liable for damages under the theory of respondeat superior, because the order to remove the individual from the home was not made by an individual deemed as a decision-maker by the city (p. 286).

From the outside, this case seems to fit the theory of respondeat superior. As the employer, the city should be held responsible for the actions of its employees. The police, serving as the city???s employees acted in a manner that was unnecessary for the situation and in conflict of their training (p. 286). However, the court sided with the City of Houston because the chain of command was not followed in regards to the use of force (p. 286). The end result is a case where an individual made a decision that was not his to make; that ultimately cost a man his life.

[supanova_question]

× How can I help you?