Struggling

So I finally finished Houchin's essay and I can't say that it is seating too well with me. I really liked the first half of the essay. The fact that it is the object towards which we act that determines whether our actions are selfish or self-interested was very helpful and I agree. However, in the second half of the essay, I do not agree with Houchin's idea that virtue is developed only through an attempt to improve yourself. In his example of The Plague, Houchin says that Rambert is "a morally superior individual relative to Rieux because Rambert is conflicted" (23). I myself am conflicted in how to take to this notion. Is it good for Rambert to improve himself? Absolutely. Does that make him superior to Rieux? Not exactly. If this is the case, what incentive do we have to become "Morally Praiseworthy/Commendable/Virtuous/A Fully Realized Human Being" (26)? Houchin himself states that all of our activities as humans have some aspect of self-interest in them. So what self interest is there in pursuing this morally praiseworthy state if, once we reach it, we "have in fact fallen to the bottom of [Houchin's] totem pole of virtue" (24)? Maybe I'm just missing out on some detail, but I'm not seeing a connection between the fact that everything we do is in our own interest, but attaining moral completion leads us back to the bottom of the totem pole.