Baier's refutation of ethical egoism

Abstract

ETHICAL egoism is the view that each person ought, all things considered, to do that action which is most in his over-all self-interest. Kurt Baier argues against this moral theory on the grounds 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." 1 Other philosophers have agreed with this claim2 and Baier's argument in its support has been widely reproduced in anthologies and introductions to moral philosophy. This is unfortunate, since the argument as advanced is insufficient to establish its conclusion. Why is it impossible for the consistent egoist to make moral judgments? Baier imagines the following case: B and K both seek the presidency of a certain country. It is in B's over-all self-interest to become president and afterwards to eliminate K; similarly, it is in K's over-all self-interest to become president and afterwards to eliminate B. Of course, there can be only one president, thus their self-interests are irreconcilable. In light of this, it would be in B's interest to assassinate K, and it would be in K's interest to prevent B from assassinating him; and vice versa. Given ethical egoism, this is exactly what B and K ought to do. Such a case is characteristic of the situations with which this moral theory is to deal. Baier suggests that the full analysis of this example is as follows: 1. B ought, all things considered, to assassinate K. 2. K ought, all things considered, to prevent B from assassinating K. 3. K's preventing B from assassinating K = K's preventing B from doing what B ought to do, all things considered. 4. One ought never to prevent someone from doing what they ought, all things considered, to do. 5. Therefore, K ought not, all things considered, to prevent B from assassinating K.3