Dear Paul, I will read your essays with pleasure.

(1) To be honest, I don't feel that it isn't widely believed that it's wrong to do something for oneself. Maybe among some Christians/Kantians only. But I'm interested on your elaboration on this problem. Anyhow, I don't have the answer to the question that's assuming what I think isn't the case.

(2) I fully agree with your stance on utilitarianism and hope that you didn't misunderstand me. You put it beautifully: it's a justification for one's authoritarianism. But I wouldn't say that it draws on an epistemic confusion. Or any confusion of the rational sort. Indeed, believing that one has the authority to impose their morality upon others is not a rational fallacy. This connects with

(3) When I say that morality shouldn't be limited by rationality, I don't mean it in the either-or sense. It's not either rationality or faith or whatever, I think. But, when it comes to the case of faith, I strongly believe that we have to realize that we're not talking just religion. What I would call faith in regards to morality is much more than a religious belief. It is also the unjustified ethical "axioms" one makes at the beginning, it's also the "common sense" one ascribes to some of their ethical justifications. Truly, the axioms and the common sense canot be justiied rationally. Even the mentioned survival value is irrational, for what's the purely rational reason for living? I see none.

Hence I don't look for an alternative for rationality in moral reflection, rather want to delineate between what's rational and what comes from some kind of faith. I believe that if we are honest with ourselves, we openly recognize that some of our ethical beliefs have no rational justification - and that relates to *any* ethical stance.

Of course, the role of reason in ethics is immesurable, as in any kind of reflection. But mere reason does not suffice.