Baier

Baier tries to show that:

1. Ethical Egoism is untenable
2. There are compelling reasons why we should be moral

1.

While Psychological Egoism claims that as a matter of fact all our actions proceed from self-interest, Ethical Egoism (EE) distinguishes between

• shortsighted self interest
• enlightened self interest

and claims that one ought to act solely on the basis of enlightened self-interest.

Pros:

• Typically, one knows one's own self-interest better than other people
• Typically, one has more motivation in pursuing one's self-interest than of another's
• Typically, one can take better care of one's own self interest than of another's

Note: Hence, Baier claims that perfect egoism is better (produces greater welfare) than perfect altruism.

However, Baier claims that EE is untenable because it is

1. self-refuting in that the same action can be both right and wrong

Rationale: Suppose that it's in A's interest to bump B off and in B's interest to bump A off. Then, for EE it's A's duty to kill B and viceversa. Hence, A's attempt at killing B is both right and wrong: right because it's A's duty and wrong because it prevents B from doing his duty.

Problem: But in this case it is right, i.e., in A's interest, to prevent B from performing his duty. Hence, there is no contradiction: A's action is right for A as it is in A's interest to prevent B from performing his (B's) duty. Of course, A's action is wrong for B, but that's no contradiction. There's no contradiction in saying that A's duty is to kill B and B's duty to kill A. Contrast this with saying that the very same action, killing Caesar, is both right and wrong.

Possible reply: If EE aims at being a theory of morality, then it must satisfy some formal requirement of morality. One of them is that if an action is right for one agent, it must also be right for the recipient. If an action is right for A, it must also be right for B, and viceversa.

2. unable to mediate conflicts of interest.

Rationale: Although often it may be in the interest of two parties to compromise, there are exceptions. Baier thinks that self-interest cannot solve genuine problems arising from conflicting self-interest.

2. Why should one be moral?

Since egoism, in spite of being overall better than altruism, cannot provide a foundation for morality, one faces the question whether to follow self-interest or morality. Why should a well-informed rational being choose to behave morally?  Here there are two types of justification:

internal (validation): we have a good moral reason to be moral, and that's all that is  required.

Problem: This reply seems to be beside the point, as what's needed is external justification.  One is asking:  why should moral reasons have priority over self-interested reasons? Why should the moral way of life have priority over other conflicting ways of life (religious, self interested etc.)?  Why shouldn't I use Gyges' ring immorally, as it is to my advantage to do so?

external (vindication): moral reasons are 'higher' than self-interested reasons, which are the second best. But 'higher' in what sense? Baier seems to think (p. 326) that there are self-interested reasons to choose morality over self-interest.

Rationale: Imagine you have to choose between two worlds where to live, X and Y. X is ruled by self-interest, and Y by morality. Since X will degenerate into Hobbes' state of nature while Y will not, it's in your self-interest to choose Y, that is, to choose morality.

Problem: There's no question that, from self-interest, you should choose Y. However, it does not follow that you should be moral; from self-interest, you're best off in a moral world in which everyone else is moral and only you are a clever scoundrel.

Possible reply: But the choice is among universal rules of behavior, i.e., rules valid for everyone (no exceptions). Hence, the choice has to be between X and Y.