I'm seeing a new feud going on highlighted by certain posts Whales Self-Voting Stats, Mmmm Yeah Baby, Put It In My Reward Pool where people are being accused of "Reward Pool Rape". Some of these people are people who read my blog such as 
The rational and moral justifications for self upvoting
The people who are complaining about self upvoting and arguing about the numbers involved are not looking at the big picture. Every account holder has some required income which they must continue to main in order to maintain the account and continue to post. There is in my opinion a reasonable range which can be measured as estimated SBD income marked by the transfers either to an exchange from their wallet indicating spending or marked by the amount of SBD they've earned from self voting. Self voting in my opinion is morally justified to be used when income for an account is below a certain threshold.
What are some possible thresholds?
If I'm going based on myself then it's the amount of income which would allow me to pay my bills (including taxes), maintain my health (have 3 meals a day, a place to sleep, etc), and facilitate my pursuit of happiness. New users would say it is selfish to want to fund your blog by self voting and this would be true if 100% of all votes come from self voting because it would indicate that the blog is not producing any value for anyone. If no one really reads the posts or if the quality of the blog is very low (just a bunch of random pictures copied from elsewhere) then of course people can make an argument that the blog isn't producing any value for anyone and so it's "bad" to self vote that kind of post.
On the other hand, if the blogger has put forth time and effort into posting and there are a fan base of readers who are looking at, commenting on, or interacting with these posts, then in my opinion this provides all the necessary moral justification for self voting. The post clearly has value because some other account holders are interacting with it. This becomes obvious as the blogger develops enough of a reputation that known well bloggers comment on their posts.
I set my threshold based on:
- Cost of living (including tax).
- Cost of pursuit of happiness (which is how much it costs to be happy)
The cost of living differs depending on where I'm living at the time. If I'm in the United States then the cost of living is within a particular range which can be predictable. If my account is earning SBD beyond the typical cost of living then in my opinion the reward pool protectors union has a moral justification to ask why I'm upvoting myself far beyond what it costs to maintain my status as a blogger.
The cost of pursuit of happiness is more subjective. This too has a range. Below is a quote based on the scientific evidence for what that is:
Life satisfaction costs $125,000 in Australia, $105,000 in North America, and $100,000 in Western Europe – but only $70,000 in Southeast Asia, $45,000 in Eastern Europe, and $35,000 in Latin America.
Globally, it's cheaper for men to be satisfied with their lives ($90,000) than women ($100,000), and for people of low ($70,000) or moderate education ($85,000) than people with higher education ($115,000).
Based on the studies we have these two thresholds:
- High $125,000
- Low $35,000
So if an account holder is in North America and has earned over $105,000 in SBD then in my opinion the Steem Reward Pool Abuse Union has a moral justification to make a fuss. If an account is literally pulling out $20,000 a month from the reward pool then even I would have to say perhaps they should consider slowing down. It is of course up to the individual how much they decide to pull out particularly if it's from their Steem Power but if it is from the Reward Pool then those who pull out more will inevitably look worse than those who pull out less.
The range between $125,000 and $35,000 in my opinion is the typical range which any account could earn without having to give any moral justification. If an account is to earn $125,000 a year, this is about:
$62.50 per hour
or
$10,415 per month
What this means is that anyone making less than roughly $10,000 per month from blogging in my opinion is morally justified and does not have to give any reason for why they self upvote. This is particularly true in the case where they actually blog seriously, have a following, and have provided (and continue to provide) value to the community.
Conclusion
- Self upvoting in my opinion is morally justified in cases where the total amount being earned per month is reasonable.
- Reasonable is defined by cost of living and life satisfaction cost (based on scientific studies).
- As long as bloggers who self upvote are providing value in return then the Steem ecosystem is getting something out of it.
So the conclusion is that the morality or immorality of self upvoting is determined by how much money overall per year an account is earning. High earning accounts really have less justification morally than low earning accounts. A high earning account would be an account which earns beyond the "reasonable" threshold as determined by scientific studies. If it were my account and I were earning $10,000 a month I would not bother upvoting my own posts (particularly if people complain about it). If on the other hand I'm earning less than say $5000 per month then in my opinion it is completely moral for me to self upvote so I would do so for sure. In other words morality exists on a spectrum and is mediated by public opinion.
Public opinion vs personal goals, where if personal goals are not being sacrificed (pursuit of happiness, ability to pay rent and taxes) then listening to public opinion is often the better idea than ignoring it. On the other hand if you're not able to meet personal goals and public opinion is obstructing the pursuit of happiness then it may make sense to seek to change public opinion if you've got enough influence to do it.