may be able to steal ‘risk free’ from a charity, but conclude that this not
in his self-interest. He may decide the negative feelings associated with
depriving a charity is not outweighed by monetary gain, thus stealing
is not in his overall self-interest. It is therefore not the moral theory of
egoism that has failed, rather that a failure to apply its principles correctly
to the particular scenarios that has led to to incorrect conclusions.
Suppose we did decide that ethical egoism can endorse acts that we
ordinarily consider to be wicked and therefore immoral. We ought to
pause before writing off self-interest as immoral for this reason alone.
In labelling these actions as wicked we seem to be implicitly “appealing
to a non-egoistic conception of wickedness” (Rachels, 2018, p.85).
There is a danger of circularity here. We start by saying that what is
moral is whatever is in the individual’s self-interest. However, when self-
interested actions feel distasteful we then reject them as immoral - but
by definition this rejection has to be by reference to some moral code,
not by reference to egoism itself which would presumably have no such
qualms about the actions..
Let us suppose that we can resolve our concerns about wicked acts
and accept that acting out of self-interest is compatible with common
sense morality. Would we now have a basis for saying that self-interest
is moral? Kurt Baier says no, because whatever its merits, self-interest
cannot provide solutions for conflicts of interest. The purpose of moral
theory must, in part at least, be to provide solutions to conflicts, since
without the conflicts there would be no need for a moral code. If self-
interest cannot provide such solutions there is a clearly a problem.
Baier uses the case of “B and K” to illustrate the point. B and K are both
presidential candidates. We should assume that it is in the interests of
either to be elected and there can be only winner. We will see that ethical
egoism is untenable because it implies the same action is both right and
wrong. A simplified version is offered in a note from Southern Illinois
University (2018). It is in B’s self-interest to ‘bump off’ K and it is in K’s
self-interest to bump off K. Then, under ethical egoism it is B’s duty to
kill K and vice versa (this is what each of them ought to do). Hence, B’s
attempt at killing K is both right and wrong. It is right because it is B’s
duty to kill A (to pursue his own self-interest) and it is wrong because it
prevents K from doing his duty (i.e. killing B out of his self-interest). Baier
writes, “one and the same act cannot be both morally wrong and not
112