We all confront the decision in our lives to act in our own self-interest, or to act in the interest of others. It might be argued that we perform acts that are hurtful to ourself & others, and sometimes mutually beneficial, but we are concerned with motives, not consequences. Seldom is it as simple as that, since we confront the following rationalisations:
- Idealists: There are those people who place ideas above the facts of reality. They are called rationalists. Help ourselves with no regard for others: This is the philosophical path of the egoist, though there is often confusion over what constitutes an egoist. This misconception is best identified in the characters of the novel “The Fountainhead” (by Ayn Rand). People erroneously regard the hedonist as an egoist, but when you consider their values, they have a collective soul (based on social values). The true egoist is the capitalist who trades value for value. He recognises that others might gain a great deal from his trade, but helping others is not his motivation. Some would interpret the ‘greedy capitalist’ as a hedonist, selling faulty products, but actually the psychology is different.
Help others with no regard for ourselves: These people often end up having panic attacks or nervous breakdowns, because their actions are self-destructive. They tend to define themselves as ‘victims’ and they are contemptuously disregarded by others. The physical symptoms of their condition (anxiety) is usually sufficient motivation for them to change, though it might be a piecemeal rationalisation. Limited control rather than a need for total control. Such a person can only function because they give primacy to their spiritual values over their personal (renounced) needs. Though spiritual values are rather empty without some earthily ‘gain’, and that comes in the form of control. Control over their tasks, other people. Anxiety requires rationalisation of those responsibilities. - Empiricists: These are people who are suspicious of ideas, and thus only trust concrete facts they can perceive. This group includes the pragmatists and skeptics, people motivated by practicality. It’s a rather twisted philosophical position, or should I say inverted or implicit. It involves defining a moral system to achieve the result you want. The problem is that it turns knowledge on its feet, stealing an ethical concept to draw a political solution. The problem: Practical – by what (ethical) standard of value. It subsumes pre-established knowledge of what you want to practice. So what works for some does not work for others. Here are some popular schemes:
Libertarians: The best example is the US libertarians who believe in free, unfettered markets. They don’t care why you do, so long as you concur with the ‘invisible hand’ benefits of markets. As a result they have no moral guidance when it comes to issues of ‘market failures’. They end up falling prey to liberalism. The result is that the organisation has a religious faction, an anarchist faction and an atheist faction (if they will tolerate them).
Economic Rationalists: The term I coin to counter those that opposed ‘economic rationalism’ years ago. Unsurprisingly it never had a satisfactory conceptual grounding. It was a wholly negative smear campaign. Eg. Australian Labor Party. - Enlightened souls: I’m not aware of any word that captures the ‘integrated world view’, but basically I would consider them to be people that seek an intellectual view of the world, but its grounded in facts and experience. Its not based on lofty ideals detached from reality (context-dropping or definition), nor isolated facts detached from conclusions. It would involve looking up to heroes (romanticism), but also looking down with empathy (naturalism). I can identify 2 modes of thought in this group, and linking this to psychology (hierarchy of values), I would suggest the approach that people take in life depends on their life experience (‘sense of life’). Those people with a tragic (malevolent) sense of life will help themselves before they help others. Those coming from a benevolent life experience will take the more generous option of helping others to achieve goals. Either way its selfish, but goal-orientated rather than phrenetically self-centred.
Help others so they can help us: You might think this is hardly a practical philosophy if you have got nothing. But some clever souls out there take into the ‘guilt’ factor, displaying their lack of capacity to give, hoping to benefit from the reciprocity principle from those with the means. Eg. You give them $1, and guilt might see them give you $100. Pride would at least see them give you $1. Perceived stinginess might see you receive $2. Cynics might see it this way. Others might see such people as impractical idealists, and others as fellow idealists. Its easy enough to determine their position. To assess their integrity, you need only talk to their neighbours, and find out what they are like when they are not in need.
Help ourselves so we can help others: Psychologists have long recognised that humans have a hierarchy of needs. Critical to their survival are such values as food, water, air and shelter. But once we are satisfied, even these become surpluses with greater utility to others. Luxuries are things we can totally do without. Its compatible with our hierarchy of values, as when people feel confident, proud and accomplished, they often feel generosity, thus willing to invest their surpluses in others. Economics would argue that the utility of these incremental surpluses is lower so it makes sense to give our surpluses to others.
Ethics concerns itself with how people act. Politics deals with organisational structures to regulate human behaviour. Our executive government broadly has a monopoly on the use of force, though some would argue that this authority is vested in various arms of government, eg. Police, the judiciary, immigration, railway police, etc. However, let’s presume the worst, that their values are aligned, whether these are to uphold the same shared values, or to preserve their own power.
The question is then, should members of society be forced to adopt a moral system, and if so, which one? Morality pertains to those choices for which we have a choice. If we are forced to be ‘moral’, then we can’t claim to be virtuous, can we? Yet we often praise the ‘courage’ of soldiers or survivors (like Stuart Diver at Thredbo) for surviving an ordeal. But are they so courageous? Often they are not presented with a choice. Of course the media likes its heroes and crises, as it creates great stories.
Ever noticed how the tax office asks you to sign your tax return. In the process we are agreeing that we have made an honest declaration, and have attached the required information. There is however the presumption that this is a voluntary agreement between consenting adults. Having been audited, I can assure you they are really nice people! Great inter-personal skills. But of course you have to pay tax because there is a gun at your head if you don’t. Well, that’s when you ultimately run out of choices. Ouch! Don’t go there! I’m sure their must be better ways to avoid paying taxes.
People either accept the established political process because they believe in the values, or because they perceive themselves to have no choice. Facing a confrontation with a formidable authority, they ‘roll’. For the sake of this essay, let’s all be ‘cowards’ and comply. Again, to ensure I can finish this essay tonight, let’s accept that we have no ‘real or effective’ choice about our form of governance, and just ponder a few ideas.
Is there a conflict between the moral and the practical? People often say that ‘socialism is good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice’, or the paradox ‘capitalism is cruel, but it is the most productive form of government’. Then of course, there is the liberal, who attempts to ‘pea-shoot’ the ‘best’ elements out of each system……to reach a comfortable ‘compromise’. Should a philosophic belief be of this world, or a mystic revelation? Should be based on a set of values based on our understanding of human attributes (science) or based upon how he is (psychology, naturalism)?
Should a moral set of values enforceable? Above I have identified a range of ethical positions that a person could take. All of them require coercion by governments – after all that’s what governments are for. Clearly if there were no consequences for ‘destructive’ behaviour, bad behaviour would be rewarded, and the planet would be ruled by cave men instead of politicians and bureaucrats. Maybe I should define my terms so you can distinguish the difference. Naa!
The Christian proverb ‘turning the other cheek’ is a case in point. But then I’m sure you could quote a contrary verse. If it worked, there would be fewer sectarian Christians around, and the Middle East would be the intellectual centre of the world still – well that is where they learned to count! The decimal system came from the Middle East. They were also the first to have slaves and prostitutes, so they are quite a progressive people.
So the question is – By what moral right does a person (or group, or government) impose force upon another? Democracy has the symbolic and ‘psychological’ threat of power, but whilst that makes it practical (by a cave man ethic), does it have intellectual legitimacy. All of the ethical systems above are based on the use of force. Some are based on the initiation of force (socialism & mixed ‘liberal’ economies), others on a retaliatory use of force (laissez faire capitalism). So what then are the source of rights? Are they:
- Social contract: An agreement entered into by individuals at the age of 18yo. This might involve people having a choice to join a socialist system or a capitalism system at age 18yo. There might even be provisions to buy your way out. Practical? Should people be tied to agreements made at age 18yo, enslaved to a system they never really understood. Can be no worse than a system like the current one where you have no choice?
- Alienable right: An entitlement derived from the nature of man. Such a concept is fine if it’s based on a realistic understanding of humans, and its broadly accepted. Eg. Humans are rational beings, so governments should protect their ‘intellectual’ choice or values, so long as they don’t breach others ‘rights’. Otherwise it would involve a contradictory or unprincipled application of terms.
- Democratic Right: A condition granted or withdrawn at the permission of the duly elected government. Such a right places people at the behest of executive government. The question is – Can we be assured we know what we are voting for. Consider that we don’t know how others are voting, and MPs vote as ‘blocks’ (sometimes factional), and voting can be reactionary. Should a ‘majority’ of voters have the right to impose their terms upon a minority, particularly given that by no standard of truth can the ‘majority’ be said to have greater legitimacy.
In conclusion, I am left with the belief that we should put aside those philosophies which date back to cave man times, which are pre-date the intellectual development of humans, before science and really any great understanding of human nature or the world we live in. It was only in the 19th century that psychology was recognised as an independent science. Admittedly philosophy had been around for centuries, but it had done more harm than good.
Its about time the human race required more of itself, and stopped looking upon their fellow men as suckers (having more than you) or with contempt (because you are burdened by them), whether materially or psychologically. Capitalism is the only system of government where individuals engage in relationships on the basis of choice, and mutual recognition of value. It is indeed unfortunate that capitalism has had such ‘non-intellectual’ foundations, because the consequences has been the psyche of ‘them & us’ we have witnessed between workers and entrepreneurs. Its created fear and contempt. That negative sense of life was missing in early American colonial life because it the early nation was earning large profits, and everyone was capitalising on it. Developed nations need not miss out on such opportunities if they dismantle the ‘entrenched cultural values’ that inhibit them. The US distinction is that it has no ‘entrenched culture’ despite its 400 history. Its always recreating itself. Europe, Japan and other medieval cultures have required authoritarianism or revolution.
