1. The supposed conflict between individual self-interest and the common good is one of
the hottest debated issues in economic ethics, environmental ethics as well as at the
intersection
between
ecology
and
economics.
Examples concerning planet earth ecology include air and water pollution, overfishing,
the clearing of rain forest for agriculture, animal habit destruction, the over-exploitation
of natural resources especially in so called ‘Third World’-countries, carbon emissions and
the burning of fossil fuels/non-renewable energy resources and consequential global
warming and climate change (i.e., ecological footprint).
Self-interest is not necessarily evil, though it can lead people to act in morally
reprehensible ways. The love of self, and the consequent development of self-interest, is
one aspect of a creature who is also a social, and hence moral, being. Self-interest itself
can serve moral interests in a free society so long as that society has the proper
foundations. The elements of those foundations include not only a populace sharing a
substantial body of moral beliefs and habits but also the formal political structures,
positive laws, and accepted court decisions capable of supporting both social order and
personal freedom. Once those are in place, and once they have been internalized by the
bulk of the citizens, then self-interest will provide a fuel of sorts to keep an economy
functioning effectively without leading to immoral results on the whole. The question is
always: Is our society organized properly, in its positive laws and in the habits we teach
our children and reinforce in ourselves, so that self-interest and moral principles do not
generally come into conflict?
Sometimes, good people will decide that something has gone wrong and it is time to fight
for a moral principle even if it becomes necessary to sacrifice, or at least qualify, their
own self-interest.
In context, Professor Sowell was not arguing against those imputing some sort of moral
power to self-interest; he was instead arguing against those who think there should be an
easy path to the reform of a society which may have a particular moral defect. Those are
two sides to the same coin — serving self-interest may put a person in conflict with moral
values and the attempt to serve moral values may lead to some sacrifice of one's selfinterest.
Self-interest can be a powerful fuel for a society, at least when the citizens of that society
are well-formed individuals, but there is no mystical or magical aspect to self-interest that
guarantees moral results. Self-interest will lead to generally moral results to the extent
that moral constraints, external but mostly internal, guide the actions of the self-interested
parties. A society with the proper constraints does not come into existence by some act of
magic, but rather by the acts of people who are aiming at a higher purpose, whether the
preservation of liberty in the society as a whole or the preservation of a cooperative spirit
within communities of programmers, or maybe both of those at the same time.

2. In any society there is a natural tension between the interests of individuals and the
interest of the group as a whole. There is a conflict between what individuals want and
what serves their interests and what is needed for the welfare, safety and security of the
entire group. Government needs to moderate that conflict. Depending on the type of
view that is operative concerning the nature of the social arrangement and the nature of
government, the conflict will be resolved in favor of one or the other sets of interests.
Examples:
1. Individuals may believe that they have the right to smoke tobacco. The group or
society as a whole has an interest in preserving its heath and well being. How is the
conflict to be resolved? In different societies there are different resolutions. In those
favoring individualism there may be a great amount of freedom and a great reluctance on
the part of government to restrict the liberties of individuals even when they are placing
the welfare of others in jeopardy. In other societies that favor the common good over that
of individuals there is less reluctance on the part of that government to intervene in the
personal lives of individuals in order to preserve the common welfare and provide for the
common good.
2. Individuals have an interest in preserving their earnings and using them as hey see fit.
In most countries the government takes a portion of those earnings through taxation and
distributes the goods and services purchased with those funds as the government thinks
best to provide for the more general good.
3. Individuals may want to ride in their automobiles without wearing a seat belt. Society
acts to protect itself from foolish behavior that threatens the common welfare.
Government enacts laws requiring the use of seatbelts in order to reduce the number of
accidents in which the drivers are injured and become so impaired that society must
provide for their medical and physical care for the rest of their lives.
4. Individuals have an interest in self-protection, sporting pleasure, or hunting and so
want to have guns and handguns. Society has an interest in reducing injuries and deaths
caused by the use of such devices as weapons involved in crimes or accidents. In some
countries government has acted for the common welfare and has prohibited private
ownership of such devices.
The topics involved with Social and Political Philosophy are far from being uninteresting
or unimportant. The theories of philosophers who discuss such topics are far from being
of no concern to that of society. The ideas of philosophers on these matters have led
directly or indirectly to revolutions and legislation and many social and political activities
in all nations of the world.