Kyle Markley’s letters in Tuesday’s Daily exhibit an interesting perspective on moral theory, but his point falls flat when held up to a deontological perspective.

He expresses ideas of “rational morality” which encompass the “virtue of selfishness ” and the “perspective of self-interest” as the core components of ethical theory.ÿ

While factoring in for one’s own interests is a valid consideration in moral theory, it becomes not moral theory at all, but a dogma for justifying one’s behavior regardless of consequences.ÿ

Morality becomes a convenience which is altered at the whim of the individual. This is not morality, rational or otherwise.

Morality is not always convenient to the individual;ÿtrue morality is genuinely beneficial to the moral worth of a group, to the maximization of individual’s inherent worth.

This will not always involve sacrifice but it is not always convenient either.

Selfishness as the centerpiece of a moral theory fails because it fails to account for effects other than those impacting the individual directly.

I must ask followers of the selfishness principle, “What has your life meant in the end? What was the sum total of this?”

Morality cannot work unless a moral maxim can be followed universally. Morality is not merely situational.

Acting solely out of self-interest ignores the impacts on others and is a moral crime because all humans are equal in their moral worth and are entitled to respect and consideration of these principles.ÿ

Self-interest simply cannot account for this.ÿ

How can people have any virtue when only thinking of themselves and not the consequences their actions may have on others?ÿ

Humans simply should not become slaves to others. To expect others to sacrifice is moral hypocrisy.ÿ

And although to act on what is right is the ideal,ÿto help others through the effects of your own achievements is still good.ÿ

Though many, such as Ben Godar, sharply criticize men like Bill Gates for not giving enough of his wealth to others, they overlook that he has benefitted others by providing jobs as well as a commercial market and competition of ideas.

His achievements represent a moral ideal, yet the greatest good is acting out of what is right in and of itself. This may not always be easy — in fact, it rarely is. What is truly good never is.ÿ

The moral ideal isn’t a convenient rule to be disposed of when it no longer benefits one individual. It is about respect and maximizing the rights of others as well as the self.

The line between total altruism and selfishness lies in balancing the moral worth of the individual and others. No individual has a greater or lesser moral worth than another and is due the same respect as the self.

“Love one another as one would love the self” takes on a whole new meaning here.

---

Steve Skutnik

Freshman

Physics