Cfhe Moral Point of View:
A RATIONAL BASIS OF ETHICS
By Kurt Baier
PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY
CANBERRA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE
Cornell University Press
ITHACA, NEW YORK
. g which he
. He must stilI
. tentions, but
Eight
The Moral Point of View
THROUGHOUT
the history of philosophy, by far the most
popular candidate for the position of the moral point of view
has been self-interest. There are obvious parallels between these
two standpoints. Both aim at the good. Both are rational. Both
involve deliberation, the surveying and weighing of reasons.
The adoption of either yields statements containing the word
'ought.' Both involve the notion of self-mastery and control
over the desires. It is, moreover, plausible to hold that a person could not have a reason for doing anything whatsoever
unless his behavior was designed to promote his own good.
Hence, if morality is to have the support of reason, moral
reasons must be self-interested, hence the point of view of
morality and self-interest must be the same. On the other
hand, it seems equally obvious that morality and self-interest
are very frequently opposed. Morality often requires us to
refrain from doing what self-interest recommends or to do
187
The Moral Point of View
what self-interest forbids. Hence morality and self-interest
cannot be the same points of view.
1 SELF-INTEREST AND MORALITY
Can we save the doctrine that the moral point of view is
that of self-interest? One way of circumventing the difficulty
just mentioned is to draw a distinction between two senses of
'self-interest,' shortsighted and enlightened. The shortsighted
egoist always follows his short-range interest without taking
into consideration how this will affect others and how their
reactions will affect him. The enlightened egoist, on the other
hand, knows that he cannot get the most out of life unless he
pays attention to the needs of others on whose good will he
depends. On this view, the standpoint of (immoral) egoism
differs from that of morality in that it fails to consider the
interests of others even when this costs little or nothing or
when the long-range benefits to oneself are likely to be greater
than the short-range sacrifices.
This view can be made more plausible still if we distinguish
between those egoists who consider each course of action on
its own merits and those who, for convenience, adopt certain
rules of thumb which they have found will promote their
long-range interest. Slogans such as 'Honesty is the best policy,'
'Give to charity rather than to the Department of Internal
Revenue,' 'Always give a penny to a beggar when you are likely
to be watched by your acquaintances,' 'Treat your servants
kindly and they will work for you like slaves,' 'Never be arrogant to anyone-you may need his services one day,' are
maxims of this sort. They embody the "wisdom" of a given
society. The enlightened long-range egoist may adopt these
as rules of thumb, that is, as prima-facie maxims, as rules
which he will observe unless he has good evidence that departing from them will pay him better than abiding by them.
188
The Moral Point of View
is
. culty
. es of
.. hted
taking
their
e other
ess he
will he
on on
certain
their
policy,'
ternaI
likely
ants
be ar-
It is obvious that the rules of behavior adopted by the
enlightened egoist will be very similar to those of a man who
rigidly follows our own moral code.
Sidgwick appears to believe that egoism is one of the legitimate "methods of ethics," although he himself rejects it on
the basis of an "intuition" that it is false. He supports the
legitimacy of egoism by the argument that everyone could
consistently adopt the egoistic point of view. "I quite admit
that when the painful necessity comes for another man to
choose between his own happiness and the general happiness,
he must as a reasonable being prefer his own, i.e. it is right
for him to do this on my principle." 1 The consistent enlightened egoist satisfies the categorical imperative, or at least one
version of it, 'Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at
the same time will that it should become a universal law.'
However, no "intuition" is required to see that this is not
the point of view of morality, even though it can be universally adopted without self-contradiction. In the first place,
a consistent egoist adopts for all occasions the principle 'everyone for himself' which we allow (at most) only in conditions
of chaos, when the normal moral order breaks down. Its
adoption marks the return to the law of the jungle, the state of
nature, in which the "softer," "more chivalrous" ways of
morality have no place,"
This point can be made more strictly. It can be shown that
those who adopt consistent egoism cannot make moral judgments. Moral talk is impossible for consistent egoists. But
this amounts to a reductio ad absurdum of consistent egoism.
Let Band K be candidates for the presidency of a certain
country and let it be granted that it is in the interest of either
1 Henry Sidgwick, The Methods
of Ethics, 7th ed. (London:
and Co., 1907), pref. to the 6th ed., p. xvii.
2 See below, Chapter
Twelve, section 3.
Macmillan
The Moral Point of View
to be elected, but that only one can succeed. It would then be
in the interest of B but against the interest of K if B were
elected, and vice versa, and therefore in the interest of B
but against the interest of K if K were liquidated, and vice
versa. But from this it would follow that B ought to liquidate
K, that it is wrong for B not to do so, that B has not "done his
duty" until he has liquidated K; and vice versa. Similarly K,
knowing that his own liquidation is in the interest of B
and therefore anticipating B's attempts to secure it, ought
to take steps to foil B's endeavors. It would be wrong for him
not to do so. He would "not have done his duty" until he
had made sure of stopping B. It follows that if K prevents B
from liquidating him, his act must be said to be both wrong and
not wrong-wrong because it is the prevention of what B
ought to do, his duty, and wrong for B not to do it; not wrong
because it is what K ought to do, his duty, and wrong for K
not to do it. But one and the same act (logically) cannot be
both morally wrong and not morally wrong. Hence in cases like
these morality does not apply.
This is obviously absurd. For morality is designed to apply in
just such cases, namely, those where interests conflict. But if
the point of view of morality were that of self-interest, then
there could never be moral solutions of conflicts of interest.
However, when there are conflicts of interest, we always look
for a "higher" point of view, one from which such conflicts
can be settled. Consistent egoism makes everyone's private
interest the "highest court of appeal." But by 'the moral point
of view' we mean a point of view which is a court of appeal
for conflicts of interest. Hence it cannot (logically) be identical
with the point of view of self-interest. Sidgwick is, therefore,
wrong in thinking that consistent egoism is one of the "legitimate methods of ethics." He is wrong in thinking that an
"intuition" is required to see that it is not the correct moral
190
The Moral Point of View
ould then be
K if B were
of B
- terest
point of view. That
it is not can be seen in the same way in
which we can "see" that the Court
the Supreme
ed, and vice
Similarly
ferest
K,
of B
e it, ought
ng for him
" until he
prevents
wrong and
of what B
- . not wrong
wrong for K
) cannot
be
in cases like
MORALITY
ict, But if
terest,
then
of interest.
always look
ch conflicts
ne's private
moral point
of appeal
be identical
-
therefore,
- the "legiti- g that
an
INVOLVES
DOING
THINGS
ON PRINCIPLE
Another
which
feature
of consistent
a consistent
.A consistent
egoism is that
egoist abides
are merely
the rules by
rules of thumb.
egoist has only one supreme principle,
ever is necessary for the realization
tion of his interest.
to do what-
of his one aim, the promo-
He does not have
an aim. If one has adopted
principles, he has only
the moral point of view, then one
acts on principle
and not merely on rules of thumb
promote
aim.
one's
. whether
This
involves
conforming
designed to
to the
rules
or not doing so favors one's own or anyone else's aim.
Kant grasped this point even if only obscurely.
adopting
conforming
painful,
argued
principle
to rules even when
costly, or ruinous
rightly
that,
(and notmerely
since
and he interpreted
moral
in accordance
action
further-
is action
on
with rules of thumb),
in his own favor,
exceptions.
Accordingly
he concluded
shalt not kill' states a moral rule, then any and
every act correctly
describable
must be said to be morally
as an act of killing
our deepest moral convictions;
of a man in self-defense
are wrong on this point.
him to reject some of
we certainly think that the killing
or by the hangman
wrong. Kant was prepared
someone
wrong.
Kant also saw that this view required
tions? The
so is un-
Kant,
this to mean that moral rules are absolutely
and without
that if 'Thou
doing
to oneself.
a moral agent ought not to make exceptions
inflexible
He saw that
the moral point of view involves acting on principle.
It involves
pleasant,
more,
to apply in
Sessions is not
Court.
to liquidate
ot "done his
of Petty
to say that
is not morally
our moral
convictions
Can we salvage these moral convic-
only alternative,
to say that
acting
on principle
rrect moral
191
