I thank Steve Skutnik for his reply to my letter about ethics, but I regret that I have been misunderstood.

It is a difficult task to understand what one’s self-interest is, and I would like to take this opportunity to examine the objections that he raised.

The most important of these are the fears that selfishness is “a dogma for justifying one’s behavior regardless of consequences” and that morality is “a convenience which is altered at the whim of the individual.”

It is important to realize that a person’s self-interest is determined by the facts, not by their whims.

I spoke of following one’s rational self-interest, not of following whatever one “feels” is in their interests.

Selfishness is not a license to do whatever one pleases.

There are many things people “like to do” but which are not in their self-interests.

By “selfishness” I emphatically do not mean “hedonism.”

Understanding the consequences of my actions and how they relate to my self-interest is what enables me to choose what I ought to do.

My behavior is only justified if it works for my actual self-interest. Consequences ARE important.

This includes the realm of other people, which Steve is concerned that egoism neglects.

The fact that I live on a planet with billions of people and that I interact and depend upon many people every day has an enormous bearing on my life.

Other people are important to me, even those I never interact with.

I don’t know any composers, but I want them to go on composing.

I value their music. I don’t know any steel workers, but I want them to go on working.

I value the things they build. It is certainly in my self-interest to help build and maintain a society that makes possible these people and their lives.

This is the root of selfish benevolence (which is not a contradiction in terms.)

Honesty, productivity, rationality and independence are a few of the egoistic virtues.

These virtues are what make civilizations and all good individuals tick. These virtues work; the evidence is all around you and has been building for hundreds of years.

These are virtues in every individual’s private life and therefore also society.

I have an objection to Steve’s claim that “morality cannot work unless a moral maxim can be followed universally.”

How do we choose moral maxims with a deontological lens?

Is there anything wrong with my choosing “all people ought to act in their rational self-interest” as a universal maxim?

How about “all people ought to go to Pizza Hut for dinner on Sundays” as a maxim?

If the choice of maxims is arbitrary, deontological ethics leave us without moral guidance and is therefore utterly worthless.

With that disclaimer out of the way, I agree with his statement, but for different reasons.

A morality cannot work unless it is based on the facts, the universal facts about human nature and the requirements for human survival and prospering.

“Ought” is derived from “Is,” but not from any stray maxim with surface plausibility.

If you’re curious about this ethic of self-interest, I invite you to attend the meetings of ISU’s Objectivist club (e-mail me for information), or to read Ayn Rand’s novels “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged.”

She also presented her ethics in nonfiction form in “The Virtue of Selfishness.”

I’m glad that Steve said “Humans simply should not become slaves to others.

To expect others to sacrifice is moral hypocrisy.”

I agree completely and without hesitation.

---

Kyle Markley

Senior

Computer science

President

Objectivists at ISU