two things define each other...can we get any more circular?

you think every moral is directed towards the good of the individual? or also of the family/community? so right there, morals cannot be defined by self-interests, because they encompass more than just the interests of the individual.

let alone can you have two things define each other...it's one thing to affect each other, another thing to actually define each other.

third, by self-interest, is it legitimate, eminent good or avarice and caprice? are you calling the will to survive self-interest or wanting a Viper self-interest?

i think justin's has a very interesting question that hearkens back to Hobbes and Locke, and the whole Social Contract stuff.

and in response to that last question, yes, it could be moral if it were costly to our self-interest but good for the family/community...dying to save another's life, in defense of your country.