Ethical Egoism: Examining the Joe Paterno Case, Term Paper Example

In a modern-day Greek tragedy, the recent Penn State scandal can be viewed as both a horrific event characterized by the most evil demonstration of ethical egoism unimaginable, or it can be used as a teachable moment. The collusion of so many people in covering up sexual abuse in order to further the financial interests of the Penn State football team is the ultimate demonstration of ethical egoism, acting in self interest rather than for the good of individuals, even victims of abuse.  This paper will examine the concept of ethical egoism and the way it supports the actions of Coach Paterno and all of the Penn State staff who “looked the other way”for years in order to maintain the reputation and financial contributions of this athletic team.

Consequentialist theories promote the concept that the rightness of someone’s behavior can be judged by the consequences of those actions. One of those theories, ethical egoism, is based on the notion of everyone promoting his or her own self-interest , i.e. the right to act in a way that only enhances the individual’s value (Ethical Egoism). In addition, it is considered never moral to not promote one’s self-interest. It is in direct opposition to the concept of classical act utilitarianism, which is a perspective which describes the right to behave in ways that make the best use for the value of everyone. The claim is that in order for an act to be consideredmorally correct, ethical egoism demands that the person’s self interest must be maximized (Shaver.) It is striking how significantly this theory varies from other accepted moral theories, such as those espoused by Kant, which requires that morality place importance on the interests of other people. In addition, these other theories of morality sometimes require that it is occasionally necessary for a person to extend uncompensated contributions to others, especially when the price paid by the individual is small but the gain to others is large.

If the world were inhabited by only a single individual, the case could be made that the drive for morality would be equal to the drive for self-interest because what is good for that person would be the same as what is in his or her best interest. In that situation, there would never be an occasion when the person should not pursue self-interest in favor of a different morality (Mosely.) The pursuit of self interest, it can be noted, can potentially conflict with the self-interest of another person; for example, someone might see working for a Fortune 500 company as pursuing his greatest good, whereas his boss, looking at the employee’s performance, might feel that it is in the company’s best interests to no longer keep that employee on the payroll. Living in modern society presents ongoing dilemmas caused by ethical egoism: clearly, many instances arise in which the greatest good of two people are in conflict.

In a situation where two people are desirous of the same commodity, such as water, without any means of arbitration, a rational solution would have to result in the need to share. Applying the concept of ethical egoism to this situation, however, since each party would only be seeking to achieve his own self-interest, the result would necessarily be fighting over the water. This is frequently the sort of argument that critics of ethical egoism invoke: that it results in insoluble conflict that calls for aggression on the part of one or both of the people involved, abiding by the principle that “might is right” (Mosely.)

In the recent scandal in Penn State, all of the major parties involved engaged in ethical egoism, from the graduate assistant who witnessed the abuse to Jerry Sandusky to Joe Paterno to the Penn State administration. Sandusky indulged his own sexual needs as well as power differential by molesting many of the very students who idolized him. Unquestionably, he was seeking his own self interest with no regard to the consequences that his victims had to endure, at that time and in all the years that followed. His actions were completely driven by ethical egoism rather than a rational drive that would have taken the well-being of his victims into consideration. In no way can this use of ethical egoism be viewed as morally right, since Sandusky’s selfishness caused so much harm to the boys upon which he preyed . The shame and the secrecy experienced by those victims for so long undoubtedly has had a lifelong impact on them, emotionally, socially, and sexually.

Despite everything that has transpired since the scandal broke, Jerry Sandusky still appears to lack any sense of remorse about his activities at Penn State, reinforcing the concept of ethical egoism remaining active in his self-concept. In a New York Times article published on December 3, 2011, although he still basically portrayed himself as a misunderstood victim, whose only intention was to help underprivileged children, he acknowledged that his relationships with the children violated appropriate boundaries between adults and children, leaving him vulnerable to interpretations of wrongdoing (Becker.)

The graduate assistant who initiated the entire public revelation of the wrongdoing at Penn State also exhibited ethical egoism when he witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a young boy in the Penn State gymnasium showers years ago, yetdidn’tstop the crime or help the child in any way. Instead, he protected his own self interest by simply leaving and later on, calling his father to report what he had seen. Rather than pursue the issue and making sure that something was done on an official level, this person demonstrated callous indifference to the plight of the sexual abuse victim, and all of the others to come, by protecting his own role in the incident and not coming forward in any kind of way that might have prevented children from sexual abuse.

Perhaps the most egregious example of ethical egoism in this case was that of Joe Paterno, the coach who became aware of Sandusky’s behavior but chose to protect him, Penn State’s reputation and most importantly to him, the football team from any scandal. His violations of moral law included his knowledge that one of his staff was involved in criminal sexual behavior but he did not report it to authorities, as well as his belief that he could remain on the Penn State staff until the end of the football season, highlighting his ethical egoism in his belief that it was best for him, as well is the school, if he did so. Given how much credibility Joe Paterno had at Penn State, he would have been in the position to bring the matter to light as a criminal matter and report it to the authorities. Instead, he chose to look the other way as well, and even when the scandal came to public attention, his initial reaction was denial that he knew much of anything, only later expressing regret that he hadn’t done more in an official capacity. The fact is that Joe Paterno’s ethical egoism caused him to protect his own reputation and his team, and the Penn State football operation, at the expense of past and future victims of sexual abuse by Sandusky.

Finally, Penn State is certainly a major culprit in the scandal as it is guilty of a form of collective ethical egoism: as an institution, it put its reputation and survival ahead of the safety of innocent boys and young men, allowing a known child abuser to continue on staff, and failing to hold Joe Paterno responsible for his knowledge of the incidents, even initially planning to let him remain on staff until the end of the football season.There is no clearer example of Penn State’s priorities then that: the school received billions of dollars from its student athletic programs, and while Penn State routinely penalizes its athletes for infractions such as accepting cars from recruiters or selling game-winning jerseys, when it came to child sexual abuse by its staff, the school did nothing to indicate that it attributed even a small amount of the same disapproval. The University allowed Joe Paterno to continue on as head coach for the football team for one reason alone–the financial rewards they reaped from the football program.

The strengths of ethical egoism largely involve the concept that the individual is able to pursue whatever he or she would like to do, and gives the individual freedom of choice that is virtually unlimited. It potentially allows a person to discover who they are in a profound way by focusing on their own needs, desires, and agenda almost exclusively; the results of this can be profound self-awareness. On the other hand, that very phenomenon can cause a person to become extremely unaware of and insensitive to their impact on other people, and may cause them to be unable to spot or even care about how their actions affect others negatively. Some degree of ethical egoism would seem to be helpful in the development of a self-concept; if that remains the exclusive focus of a person, however, there is a significant risk of becoming completely self absorbed and being hampered by an inability to engage in interpersonal relationships.