This is a simple, fundamental question about meta-ethics, yet I have
never seen anyone attempt to answer it.

Why should someone try to be ethical? In other words, given an
apparent conflict between ethics and self-interest, is there a reason
to choose act based on a code of ethics instead of as a rational
self-interested individual?

I will not accept any answer of the form "Self-interest dictates that
one should be ethical," as that contradicts my assumption that ethics
and self-interest are in conflict. If self-interest demands ethical
behavior, then one can simply make the ethical decision in all cases
by correctly determining one's self-interest, and ethics is redundant.

I will also reject any answer that uses circular reasoning to justify
ethics, as in "You should do the right thing because it is right to do
so."

(Perhaps appealing to collecive interest, as in the Tragedy of the
Commons, justifies ethics?)

---

Clarification of Question by cronodas-ga on 24 Nov 2005 14:42 PST

I'll accept a link to a web page or the name of a book that discusses
this issue in detail as a complete answer, as my own searches have
come up short. (I'll raise my price a bit anyway. If I ought to raise
it more, let me know.)

I know that some philosophers argue for an ethics based entirely on
self-interest. (Aristotle and Ayn Rand come to mind.) So what I am
asking is:

If ethical egoism (http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect7.html)
is false, then ethics and self-interest _can_ conflict (even if they
usually don't). Can any other ethical theory be justified without
either using circular reasoning or asserting that certain descriptive
ethical statements are axioms? (An example of such a statement would
be something like "The correct course of action is that which
maximizes the total well-being of the individuals in the society in
which one lives" or "The correct course of action is that which is
commanded by God.")

This is a very complex question with a small price. What often happens
with such questions is that they collect lots of comments, but no
official answer from a Google Answers Researcher. If you want some
serious research, I suggest that you raise your price considerably.
Even if the research is entirely opinion from a Researcher's own mind,
it still takes time to prepare a decent answer to a vast question like
this one. Stop and think: how much work would you do in order to earn
$2.25 (the Researcher's share of the price you're offering)?

Surely ethics and self-interest aren't always in conflict. Indeed, in
the majority of cases the two will go hand-in-hand - especially where
the ethical line of conduct has been incorporated into social rules,
eg a penal code - assuming it isn't in someone's self-interest to go
to gaol. Even where the unethical conduct is inside the law - eg
deceiving a partner - the eventual result may not be in our
self-interest. Yes, there will be some instances where self-interest
may appear to supercede ethics, without any disadvantage to the
individual - eg "white lies" - but perhaps it is false to include such
conduct as unethical. This brings us to the wider question of who is
defining conduct as ethical or unethical - and as with most
philosophical arguments the whole issue is probably just a matter of
semantics.

Incidentally, pinkfreud's comment to you is a good of example of
self-interest and ethics being in line with each other. Where
questioners offer fair fees for answers - ie act ethically - they
stand a better chance of receiving proper answers - which is in their
self-interest.

Neat example, Geof.

One could start by reading Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan" for one
discussion; Emmanual Kant is another philosopher who deals with the
subject; and if I had my Philosophy Dictionary here, I am sure most of
the other "big names" did too.

Without a sense of society and in pure anarchy, yes, personal interest
and ethical behavior can be at odds.  But if a society exists, it is
in the individual's self-interest to act within its ethical code,
since he will be wanting others also to do so; it is a small price to
pay for being able to trust that others will treat him fairly.

If you hear overtones of religious maxims and the basic principles of
good government, that is what the question is about.

"I will not accept any answer of the form "Self-interest dictates that
one should be ethical," as that contradicts my assumption that ethics
and self-interest are in conflict."

Why do you make that assumption?

That assumption (ethics is at odds with self interest) is a valid one
from a certain perspective.  If it is in your self interest to do a
good deed, is it really a good deed or is it really a selfish deed
that happend to benefit others as well.
With that perspective, the only time a real good deed can occur is
when you sacrifice something of value (ie time, money, status,
power...) in order to do the good deed.  Notice that this can even
rule out the warm fuzzy feeling or the idea that doing a good deed is
pleasing to God... because if that is your motivation then once again,
it isn't a sacrifice overall.

Honestly if you rule out the warm fuzzies and God then the reasoning
to do a good deed goes away in my mind.  This is because those warm
fuzzies come from the care that most of us naturally feel towards
others... if we receive no warm fuzzies with good deeds then we don't
care about others and therefore wouldn't do a good deed to benefit
anyone but ourselves.   This leaves God (or the idea that we will be
held accountable for our actions) as the only reason I can think of to
do good deeds.  But if we rule out that accountability then we're
looking at a person who sees no negative consequences for bad behavior
and doesn't care about anyone but themselves.... therefore self
interest will always win out.

The question as it is worded seems to rule out any answer.

Actually your question has a few contradictions in it as it is posed
.. and the absence of an answer is interesting in itself ... the
answer is really quite simple .. but worth alot more than $3.00 ...
the essence of the answer is that you have to know how action or the
field of activity works .. (there is support for the view that follows
from the field of physics, if you need that) ... each and every action
from an individual (any individual, bug, plants, human) produces
ripples or waves of resonant vibration that radiates outward (away
from the source of the action) ... this vibration is contained totally
within the universe and it always finds its way back to the source of
the action .. soooo  eg, if you kill someone or something .. then one
day that violent action comes back to you .. someone will try to kill
you ... it is that simple ... the remedy for wrong action (like
killing above) is also known and quite simple if you know how to
proceed .. this is the crux of it .. the analogy would be like a
pebble thrown in a still pool of water ... it creates ripples and so
on ..

Quite right, Jack, which is also what Angy pointed out.  Cronodas has
ruled out an answer that contradicts a preconceived idea, which is not
a good way to get any answer to a philosophical question.

Maybe we should leave it at that instead of entertaining each other.

Myoarin

@cronodas-ga 

I don't get it
- you have made the jump from 'morals' to 'ethics'
- yet ask this rather naive question

The simple answer is 'Just in case I get caught out'

- the more complex answer is the 'warm fuzzy feeling' otherwise known
as 'psychological egotism' that is probably a result of evolution and
certainly a good rule of thumb - with an added dash of survival
instinct.

A card carrying psychopath (check the definition) can survive well if
they follow and clearly espouse an acceptable set of ethics, they
don't even need to be the prevalent set, provided they are well
broadcast.

The answer, my friend, is RISK 
- and it is safer to follow the rules rather than recalculate every outcome.

Pure self interest is very dangerous
- get caught out, and the 'rules' might just be suspended

..."Why should someone try to be ethical? ..."

Simple answer to this --but it would take too much time to substantiate it...

Personal Integrity.

I sleep better when I live by the Golden Rule.  
I can look at myself in the mirror without disgust.  
I value human relationships, a person with no ethics would become very lonely.

Cynthia, your answer is correct... but Cronodas ruled out your answer
in his question.  The 3 reasons you gave purely consist of self
interest:
I sleep better
I feel better about myself
I'm not lonely

Pure self interest.  Interesting that we were created (or should I say
evolved)in such a way that to help others is to help ourselves.

@jack_of_few_trades-ga 

The normal term is 'enlightened self interest'
- I too reckon that it is an evolved instinct
- but that it is not universally shared - psychopathic personalities exist

Eh...I have to be frank here, why are you posting this question...Five
minutes research at your local library would answer it....

1) Ethics comes from the Greek Ethos - Character and the philosophy of
Artistotle. That is to be ethical is to act according to what you
are...A good saw is one that cuts...That is fulifills its purpose. A
good person is like a good saw, it does what it was intended to
do...Therefore the ehtical life is the good life (eudonmonia) becasue
we fulfill our purpose by doing it. I am afraid to have to inform you
that ehtics, under this system, is the pracitice of making oneself
happy its just we are to ignorant to realise it...

2) Modern philosophers wished to take up Ehtics in away that grounds
it in reason. Kant is the chap that you should read here. Essentially
we must be able to universalise our actions. That is would it be the
right thing to do regardless of circumstances, histroy, culture,
location, etc. This is also the condition of possibility of community,
we could not have community wihtout it and therefore we would starve
alone. If you lie then you are endoressing everyone to lie...Think
about it...In this system it becomes a duty becuase we must act in
this way regardless of our own selfish intincts, because we are ALL
better off including oneself...You need to read Kant's Critque of
Pratical Reason

3) Morlaity is something completely different. Morality comes from
morals and refers to customs and is thus much more ideological. See
Nietzsche Genealogy of Morality.

4) A religous argument is that your conscience is what motivates
ethical behaviour and this comes from God. Guilt is God workign
through you...

The confusion within your question is becuase you live in a capitalist
society in which doing the 'wrong' thing brings reward. We are told
that we are naturally nasty people who only do things that give us
self-gratification and thus not only is capitalism natural but that
the motivation for all ethical behaviour must be self-gratification.
This ridiculs piece of sophistry is used to undermine any ehtical
arguments levelled at Capitalism.

However we know this stuff is not true and that Artistotle is right
becuase being an unethical capitalist makes one feel alienated and
therefore not happy. We also know that Kant is right becuase society
breaksdown - violence, drugs and crime follow, becasue we fail to
carry out our duty and revolt against capitalism...

So there you have it a Good Person is Ethical Person who is a Happy
person if he has the strength and knowledge to do his duty regardless
of what suffering he may epxerince doing so!!!

In case you did not understand my answer. Its quite simple...

When you state:
"I will not accept any answer of the form "Self-interest dictates that
one should be ethical," as that contradicts my assumption that ethics
and self-interest are in conflict. If self-interest demands ethical
behavior, then one can simply make the ethical decision in all cases
by correctly determining one's self-interest, and ethics is redundant."

You are misunderstanding both terms, becuase they are one and the same thing.

That is  Ethics by definition is, to use your own terms, that
"Self-interest dictates that one should be ethical," and that we "can
simply make the ethical decision in all cases by correctly determining
one's self-interest."

Ethics is the theroy and practice of understanding your
self-interests, so you can make an ethical decision!

Maybe your problem is with your definition of self-interests, becuase
it is in no ones interest to be unethical not even your own.

Why don't people act Ethically:
1) They are ignorent. Do not know what is the right thing to do.
2) Delusional. They have deulsions about the nature of their 'self-interests'
3) Mental Illness. 
4) Egosim. Confusion of selfhood (Ego Ideal) with the ego construct
and thus act accordign to the reality principal of thier own ego.
Their is no real ego it is nothing more than a collision of forces,
See Nietzsche and Freud. This is a common form of mental delusion in
capitalist socieities where we are told to gratify our egos which in
reality do not exist...

Have a real good think about this...'Know thyself' is not the slogan
of Greek philosophers for nothing...

Kinda of forget ot mention the obvious...Most People do not act
ehtically becuase of fear and weakness...These people wish they were
strong enough to do the right thing but feel they can not becuase of
fear of losing thier own lives...However they then suffer from
guilt...So in fact by not acting they also lost their lives becasue
they can never become who they are...

The solution is that one passion can only be over come by another.
Therefore to over come fear we use love..To be truely happy one would
have to go willing to the cruxification....Which Jesus did because he
loved us all!!!

Someone who is unethical then is simply a coward who will be miserable
all their lives...Better to die than be a slave to ones fears!!! or so
Nietzsche would say...

Of course we are not jesus and thus we can only do our best and thats
all what anyone can ask including God...

The gap between is and ought shall one day beclosed is only a dream I
am afraid! Either that or a hell of alot of Heroes are required

Having presented the argument for why ethics is both a natural
inclination and the condition of possibilty of community. I have just
reliased that we have run into biopolitics. Indeed Edward O. Wilson,
the 'father' of sociobiology, has argued that  "scientists...should
consider...the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be
removed...from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized"
(Wilson, 1975: 27).

What does this mean?
If it is the case the ethics has its source in our nature through the
process of evolution (a necessity to survival) as I would argue then
if we can change mans biology then we can change mans 'ethical'
nature. We could take the approach of the Nazis and supposedly breed
out weaker traits of liberalism and produce a superior Ayran Ethos.

For example Himmler was greatly concerned about the question as to
wether homo-sexuality was heredity and therefoer could be eliminated
from the gene pool. Modern scientist are now taking up this question
in the search for the 'gay gene'.

Should this prove sucessful then the next obvious stage is to find the
'ethics' gene and eliminate this from the gene pool. Major
corporations currently use psychometeric tests to select clinical
psychopaths and sociopaths to run operations to ensure 'womenish pity
does not interfere with the efficent running of operations' and
elimaite psycholgical weaker types from the equation i.e. 'bleeding
heart liberals.'

So this question may be solved by sceience through genetic selection
of an Aryan Ethos that is fully compatible with capitalism and
therefore no is and ought gap.

Honestly, there really aren't that many answers to this question...
Thing is, where do people get their ethics from? Well they generally
are taught what is right and wrong by their parents and other people's
reactions to their actions when they are small children. There's also
the matter of conscience. Ethicalism (if that's a word) works because
people can usually get further by working together, and if a person
helps everyone else instead of themselves, instead of
Person 1 helped by: Person 1
Person 2 helped by: Person 2
Person 3 helped by: Person 3
Person 4 helped by: Person 4
you have:
Person 1 helped by: Person 2+3+4
Person 2 helped by: Person 1+3+4
Person 3 helped by: Person 1+2+4
Person 4 helped by: Person 1+2+3
So everyone has more positive and productive social contact thus
making everyone happier. But how did this happen? Well if people have
learnt it off someone it must have been learnt from somewhere
originally. But how could this have happened? Options are:
Some actient caveman pact - some random event where early man started
working together to survive.
God - all rules were origionally set by God - go read a Bible. This
could also explain conscience. The debate about the truth of the bible
is another, so we'll leave that out or we'd be here for a real long
time.
people learned from good reactions to actions towards others. the more
globablly beneficial ones were kept and repeated as people realised
greater good was personal gain.
I personally would choose to believe that rules were set by God, as
the Bible suitably answers everything. this is more of an
opinion/answer than a comment, but i dont want money anyway i'm just a
bored person looking for somehting to blah about.