Among the differences that can be seen in philosophical studies is the way of looking at the two concepts of ‘ego’ and ‘other.’ In the modern era, philosophers and thinkers, including Kant, have paid the most attention to the category of ‘ego’ and have neglected ‘otherness.’ Emmanuel Levinas is one of the thinkers who filled this study gap to a significant extent. Levinas believes that philosophy seeks to explain ‘what morality is.’ According to his definition, ethics is concerned with the right to life of ‘others.’ Levinas's philosophy can be called a kind of ‘otherism,’ which is in the opposite direction of ‘self-knowledge’ in the history of Western philosophy. Levinas emphasizes that the subject's relationship with the ‘other’ is an ‘asymmetrical’ relationship, which means that when I face the ‘other,’ it is for the ‘other,’ and this is not a mutual responsibility! ‘I’ will be responsible for answering him, without knowing how he will be in front of ‘I.’ Levinas’s philosophy is essentially an ‘alterity’ or ‘otherness’ thesis, standing in direct contrast to the ‘egology’ or self-centeredness that characterizes much of Western thought. For Levinas, ethics is defined as an attention to the right to life of the ‘Other.’ He posits that the relationship between the subject (the Self) and the Other is fundamentally asymmetrical. In this asymmetry, the Self exists ‘for’ the Other, bearing an infinite responsibility without any expectation of reciprocity. This study applies this rigorous ethical lens to the works of Neil Simon; a playwright predominantly celebrated for his comedy and wit. By shifting the critical focus from the humorous aspects of Simon’s drama to their underlying ethical structures, this paper aims to reveal the profound moral dimensions inherent in human relationships as depicted in his plays. Specifically, the research focuses on two of Simon’s major works: ‘Lost in Yonkers’ and ‘Barefoot in the Park,’ investigating how the dynamics of the Self and the Other, as well as symmetric versus asymmetric ethics, manifest within the narrative arcs of these characters. The primary objective of this research is to conduct a Levinasian reading of Neil Simon’s selected plays to uncover the ethical frameworks governing character interactions. While Neil Simon’s theatrical canon is often dissected for its comedic elements and linguistic playfulness, this study contends that a robust ethical subtext drives the conflicts and resolutions in his work. To achieve this overarching goal, the paper pursues three specific objectives: 1. To determine whether the dramatic structures of ‘Lost in Yonkers’ and ‘Barefoot in the Park’ are designed around the ethical category of Self/Other. 2. To analyse and classify the ethical relationships within these plays as either ‘symmetric’ (reciprocal, based on exchange) or ‘asymmetric’ (non-reciprocal, based on infinite responsibility) in accordance with Levinas’s definitions. 3 To examine the characters' responses to the ‘face’ of the Other—understood in Levinas’s philosophy as the epiphany that commands ‘Thou shalt not kill’—and how this encounter dictates their moral choices and the trajectory of the plot. The theoretical cornerstone of this research is the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas (1906–1995). Levinas argues that Western philosophy, from Parmenides to Heidegger, has prioritized ‘Ontology’ (the study of Being) over ‘Ethics.’ In contrast, Levinas proposes that ethics is the first philosophy. Central to his theory is the concept of the ‘Face’ (visage) of the Other. The Face is not merely a physical feature but a phenomenon that disrupts the Self’s autonomy. In encountering the Face, the subject is called into question and finds themselves hostage to the Other. Levinas introduces the concept of ‘asymmetry’ to describe this responsibility. Unlike social contracts that rely on reciprocity (quid pro quo), the Levinasian subject is responsible for the Other even if the Other does not reciprocate. This responsibility is infinite; the Self must be willing to sacrifice for the Other without the guarantee of return. This stance opposes ‘symmetric ethics,’ where moral obligations are balanced and reciprocal—a view Levinas critiques as reducing the Other to the Same. Furthermore, the study distinguishes between ‘self-centeredness (egoism)’ and ‘other-centeredness (alterity).’ Egoism seeks the maximum good for the Self, often closing its eyes to the needs of others. Conversely, Levinasian alterity involves a ‘wounded humanity’ where the subject is traumatized by the vulnerability of the Other. The ethical subject is one who says, ‘Here I am’ (me voice) in response to the call of the Other. In this research, the descriptive-analytical method is used, and the data collection method is library research and using notes. The analysis of ‘Lost in Yonkers’ and ‘Barefoot in the Park’ through the lens of Emmanuel Levinas reveals that Neil Simon’s comedies are deeply entrenched in ethical questions. The study confirms that both plays function as arenas where the Self and the Other negotiate their existence through symmetric and asymmetric ethical models. The results indicate that Simon’s plays do not merely offer simple humour but reflect the complex, often painful reality of human relationships. The categorization of characters highlights a distinct pattern: 1. Asymmetric and Altruistic Characters: Characters such as Jay in ‘Lost in Yonkers’ and Paul in ‘Barefoot in the Park’ (initially) are portrayed as the moral anchors. They exhibit Levinasian traits—suppressing the ego for the sake of the Other. Jay’s protection of his father and Bella’s devotion to Johnny are prime examples of ethics defined by responsibility and sacrifice. 2. Symmetric and Egoistic Characters: The Grandmother in ‘Lost in Yonkers’ and Corie (in the first act of ‘Barefoot in the Park’) prioritize the Self. Their interactions are governed by a logic of exchange and personal gain, resisting the call of the Other’s Face. The purpose of the present research is to achieve the importance of the two components of asymmetric/symmetric and self/other ethics after analysing two plays—Lost in Yonkers and Barefoot in the Park—and a comparative look between them. How are all three works manifested and also seeking to answer the main question that Simon's plays are based on the reading of Emanuel Levinas and the Self/Other. According to the characters who had the most movement and influence in both plays, most of them had asymmetric morals. The study concludes that in Neil Simon’s dramatic universe, the resolution of conflict often requires a shift from egoism to a recognition of the Other. While characters like the grandmother remain trapped in self-centred isolation, the protagonists who drive the emotional resonance of the plays—Jay, Bella, and ultimately Paul—are those who grapple with the weight of responsibility. This research successfully demonstrates that Levinas’s heavy philosophical concepts of the ‘face,’ ‘asymmetry,’ and ‘infinity’ are not just abstract theoretical tools but are vividly dramatized in the domestic struggles of Simon’s characters. Consequently, reading Simon through Levinas provides a profound understanding of his work, shifting the critical perspective from ‘pure humour’ to a serious exploration of the ethical obligations that bind human beings together.