Ethics

As my class and I were examining the implications of ethical egoism, a dilemma became apparent to me. How could a superogatory act exist to an ethical egoist? If one is only moral by pursuing their best self-interest, how could one go above and beyond that which is already best? (I see that this question could be viewed as a violation of guidelines, but if the honor code is accepted here, I can assure you that this is not a class question. Just personal curiosity.)

Comments

What strikes me first is that ethical egoism isn't the real issue here. If any ethical theory claims that we're obliged to maximize something or other, then there's no room left for supererogation. This means that the same point would apply, e.g., to certain forms of utilitarianism. As you are in effect pointing out, nothing's better than the best.

But the second point is that one could be an ethical egoist (or a utilitarian, for that matter) and not think that one is always obliged to maximize one's self-interest. One might think, for example, that some sort of "satisficing" is good enough to discharge one's duties. In other words, there would be a standard of what's good enough, and meeting that would suffice for doing what one ought to. But that leaves room for supererogation.

Read another response by Allen Stairs

Read another response about Ethics