In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville worried that free, capitalist societies might develop so great a “taste for physical gratification” that citizens would be “carried away, and lose all self-restraint.” Avidly seeking personal gain, they could “lose sight of the close connection which exists between the private fortune of each of them and the prosperity of all” and ultimately undermine both democracy and prosperity.
So begins a long but fascinating article in City Journal by Steven Malanga, Manhattan Institute Scholar and author of The New New Left, and the article heats up from there:
What would Tocqueville or Weber think of America today? In place of thrift, they would find a nation of debtors, staggering beneath loans obtained under false pretenses. In place of a steady, patient accumulation of wealth, they would find bankers and financiers with such a short-term perspective that they never pause to consider the consequences or risks of selling securities they don’t understand. In place of a country where all a man asks of government is “not to be disturbed in his toil,” as Tocqueville put it, they would find a nation of rent-seekers demanding government subsidies to purchase homes, start new ventures, or bail out old ones. They would find what Tocqueville described as the “fatal circle” of materialism—the cycle of acquisition and gratification that drives people back to ever more frenetic acquisition and that ultimately undermines prosperous democracies.
I agree with much of the writer's sentiment, and I recommend a full read. I don't know if I fully buy every example he lists, but I did find interesting the anecdote about how virtue became separated from work and replaced by politically correct gestures, even in board games:
When the Milton Bradley Company reintroduced “The Checkered Game of Life” in a modern version called “The Game of Life” in the mid-1960s, it abandoned the notion of rewarding traditional bourgeois virtues like completing an education or marrying. What was left of the game was simply the pursuit of cash, until Milton Bradley, criticized for this version, redesigned the game to include rewards for doing good. But its efforts produced mere political correctness: in the new version, recycling trash and contributing to save an endangered species were virtuous actions that won a player points. Such gestures, along with tolerance and sensitivity, expanded like a gas to fill the vacuum where the Protestant ethic used to be.
The article stands on its own, but I would like to make a couple of tangential points. First, there is a huge difference between hard work and honest work. We have plenty of the former. Does anyone doubt that bankers, lobbyists, corporate executives, and their attorneys don't work tirelessly? It is the lack of virtues that corrupts hard work and ingenuity to give us the over-leveraged, loop-holing, back-room dealing, government-dependent, shortsighted society we find ourselves in.
That said, greed, dishonesty, and envy are not new to the human condition. So what has changed? How did we evolve into such a Machiavellian (Exhibits A & B = Survivor & Big Brother) and narcissistic (Exhibits C - ∞ = 99% of reality shows and pop/hip-hop music) culture?
It's not media, technology, business, or government, but the lack of accountability and community that pervade not only these institutions, but our interpersonal relationships as well. We are no longer personally invested in our neighbors, friends, family members, or even ourselves. As much as we would like to recast the parable of the good Samaritan into the parable of the good Samaritan government, or the good Samaritan economy, it doesn't work that way. It only works when we take personal behavior personally, and then surround ourselves with others who share those same principles and will hold us accountable.
24 comments:
Justus,
I love your post.
But I do have a couple of questions: Do you believe GREED is bad? Do you believe it is NECESSARY for one to be "personally invested in our neighbors, friends, and family members?"
Professor, I know you weren't addressing me with your question, but I'm going to respond anyway.
Your first question is not a yes or no question in my opinion, and first I want to make sure I understand how you are defining greed. I found four definitions. Which of these do you choose, or do you have another entirely?
-excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
-a professional wrestling pay-per-view from World Championship Wrestling and was the final PPV from the company before it was purchased by the World Wrestling Federation
-a dice game for two or more players, using six six-sided dice. The object of the game is to be the first to achieve a score of 10,000 points or more.
-greedy - avid: (often followed by `for') ardently or excessively desirous
The first and last are from Princeton.edu, the middle two from the omniscient wikipedia. I would say the first definition has a negative connotation while the last has a positive one.
To your second question, I assume you believe it is not necessary to be personally invested in others. I would like to answer your question with two questions.
-Is it necessary for you to be invested in your students?
-What is more beneficial, for you to be invested or divested from them? This can relate to you, them, and society.
TJ,
I would accept the first or the fourth definition. I understand that you see each having a negative and positive connotation respectively. Go ahead and choose whichever you'd like and then answer the question: Do you believe greed is bad? Or better yet, if you read one definition as bad and the other as good, then answer the question of whether greed is good or bad using each definition. Defend each position, if you will.
Nice try, TJ. You answer my second question FIRST, since I was the FIRST to pose it. Then once I know your position, I will answer any and all questions thereafter.
Professor. My answers are simple: Yes, greed is bad, and yes, life only works well if individuals are co-invested with each other.
Now, let me define the terms using my own words. My position is that greed is completely separate and often opposed to rational self-interest. Greed, as I would define it in the context of this post and how I use it generally, is the result of myopic and narcissistic decision making, choosing immediate gains in financial/material/power/social status over the long-term best interests of one's self, and of the "greater good."
Examples include:
a) Incurring debts on material purchases beyond one's rational ability to repay.
b) Business that use public (government) funds to pay or backstop their externalities and/or financial risks.
c) Politicians using public funds for pet projects to secure re-election.
Greed, defined this way, is also bad because it can be the catalyst of further bad behavior. Greed can motivate one to steal, defraud, lie, cheat, etc.
I use terms like desire or self-interest more generally, as they can represent feelings and intent across the good-neutral-bad spectrum that drive human action. Greed may overlap the "bad" end of that spectrum, and can actually result in a thwarting one's true desires and interests.
OK, so on to the necessity of community. This is intertwined with the position that people need accountability. Recent trends (last 150 years or so) in philosophy notwithstanding, humans have never, and were never intended to live atomistic lives as unconnected individuals. Simply put, we are pack animals. Positive social behavior breaks down when we are removed from social structures. It leads not only to Machiavellianism and narcissism, but to the third leg of the dark triad, psychopathy.
Everything breaks down without community of co-invested participants. Corporate HQs in far away boardrooms make decisions that decimate locations they have never visited, government decisions are made by elites that are "above" the system and immune from consequences, and people feel no guilt in cheating the big box store, big brother government, or big bank creditor. Victimless crimes, or so we convince ourselves.
Very insightful, Justus! (Now I'm just waiting on TJ's answer.)
To keep from getting too far off track, I will use the same definition of greed as Justus, especially since this originated with his context of the blog. I agree that "choosing immediate gains in financial/material/power/social status over the long-term best interests of one's self, and of the "greater good." is bad.
So to the second question... I would also agree with Justus that things break down without community of co-invested participants.
As with most things, an extreme to either end of the spectrum is bad. If you took co-invested participants to the extreme you get communism, which we all agree is a bad system. Completely divested particpants leads to anarchy - also bad.
Thanks, TJ.
Someone please define what exactly is "the greater good?"
The greater good is a sloppy term, so I admit I probably should not have used it. What I meant by it is that which is good not only for self, but reinforces, advances, or at least does not go against moral good on a larger level beyond self.
And what level is that exactly?
Beyond self. Anything beyond self.
Draw a circle. Write "I" or "me" inside of it. That is your ego, your self, your identity, your sphere of influence. Now draw a larger circle around it. Write "other" somewhere in there. That is the larger level of which I speak - the relationships you have, the society you participate in, the environment that sustains your life, etc. The larger circle is larger in size and scope than you.
Please note that I am not making a statement about priority or hierarchy at this time, but simply of quantity/size. You can be Howard Roark, but it is difficult to build a structure without land, money, materials, suppliers, labor, or intent by others to use that building. Those exist on a larger level, in quantity and scope, than Roark's self.
And in this larger level, WHO decides what is GOOD for everything in this level "beyond the self?"
Do you have a point with the questions? Are you trying to understand me or corner me?
No one has to DECIDE what is good. It is known. We call it morality, or ethical behaviour. Or the Golden Rule. Or "Love (Look out for the interests) of one another."
Now, the community I have spoken of can hold each other accountable to that moral standard. So, the ideal is to surround yourself with as many people as possible who share your morality and start a community.
The Professor is clearly trying to corner you Justus. Don't play that game.
Force him to speak frankly on his own without bait.
It's more fun that way.
I'm definitely not trying to corner you. I simply have a different view of greed. I see it as neither positive or negative, but simply someone wanting more. I only see it negative in the first of three examples you wrote above (10:16 AM posting). In the first case, there clearly is a case of irrationality, which really has nothing to do with greed, but reason. In the second case, there really isn't a case of greed if it is legal for the government to do so. If it were illegal to use public funds, then it's a case of law, not greed. Same thing with the third case. I conclude that greed is not irrational nor is it illegal. It's not even immoral. It's only bad when there is irrationality involved or when there is fraud, lying, cheating, as you pointed above.
As for the greater good, I have heard politicians say this term widely, such as when Senator Rodham-Clinton said it during her presidential campaign. I've never understood what that is. There is such thing as good. But good is only good contextually. A Ferrari is good--for someone who lives in a city, but not for someone living in a jungle or forest. So when someone mentions the greater good, I wonder WHO exactly defined what is good and good for whom? It seems that, at best, a small group of individuals agreed to what is good and passed it on to others. I don't necessarily subscribe to this point of view. As you already know, I am a radical for individual rights, and that's all the good someone needs. Perhaps in running a business, two business partners may AGREE to what is good, but truly only ONE person has decided since that person created that value. Furthermore, a customer who does not find any value in their product may walk away, just as a customer who finds something valuable about their product may trade consensually. I guess my problem is a political enforcement of the greater good, for instance, when they go after businesses who are "price gouging." I don't believe there is such a thing as price gouging.
I hope that was clear.
We disagree on several things, but perhaps more significantly, you seem to disagree with yourself. For someone that is a self-described radical for individual rights and against political enforcement, I find it incomprehensible that you have no problem with politicians and corporations spending taxpayer money for personal gain, often at great injury or expense to society. How do you grant the government the right to take away the rights of individuals to keep their own earnings? How do you then allow for public funds to be used for political and personal gain?
I never said anything about political enforcement of any type. Quite the opposite. Go back and re-read the last paragraph in my original post. Government may determine the law, and culture may determine what is acceptable, but only individuals can decide to act virtuously.
Justus,
Apparently something is lost in translation. This is yet another reason why blogs are ineffective in debating. Where exactly does it say that I have "no problem with politicians and corporations spending taxpayer money for personal gain?" I talked about LEGALITY, not about MORALITY. While it may be LEGAL for insurance companies to buy government officials, I don't find it MORAL. One has to do with law, and the other with ethics. Government forceful taxing of our income IS LEGAL, but I find it IMMORAL. I hope you see the difference, and perhaps see why you may have confused the two.
Justus, you claimed that you "never said anything about political enforcement of any type." It turns out YOU DID. If you read through each entry, you will notice that THE FIRST PERSON to mention government WAS YOU. Neither I nor TJ mentioned in the first five entries a single word about "government" or "politics." Now look at your 10:16AM entry. It mentions GOVERNMENT and POLITICS at least four times. Then poor TJ follows up with a comment about, you guessed it, GOVERNMENT in the form of communism (12:02PM entry).
TJ, I will answer your questions in my next post.
TJ asked:
-Is it necessary for you to be invested in your students?
-What is more beneficial, for you to be invested or divested from them? This can relate to you, them, and society.
Question 1: Not only is it necessary for me to be invested in my students, but it is also part of my duties and responsibility as a professor! That's what the position requires. So in my CONTEXT, yes I must be invested in my students. But they don't make the rules, I do. Therefore, if most or all students agree that phone texting should be allowed during class, then they have just chosen a value for THE GREATER GOOD. And this is not a philosophical talk (Lumbee), I asked them EACH semester how they feel about texting and they see it as GOOD, that is, THE GREATER GOOD. I don't allow texting because I find it to be a vice, not a value in class. It is their choice to stay in my class or find another Humanities professor who allows them to text. Am I being greedy? Not really, but I am definitely being RATIONALLY selfish.
Question 2: Divested means to deprive or disposses especially of property, authority, or rights. If I were to divest in my students, that would be professional suicide. You and I agree that this is not a good thing. But I know a teacher who divests in his students. He takes away their cellphones, their right to speak in class, their right to enter and leave at will, their right to chew gum, even write something down when they are supposed to listen to music. He has no more than six students at the end of each semester. He doesn't care, he thinks he is right. I disagree with his method--he is, in my opinion, a bad professor. And even his chairperson wishes to be rid of him, but the prof is tenured, so he gets to stay as long as he wants. (To be continued)
The question that I posed in my first entry reads: Do you believe it is NECESSARY for one to be "personally invested in our neighbors, friends, and family members?" (Justus, I hope you noticed that I said "personal," not "professional" or "political.")
I believe that in some cases it is necessary, whereas in other cases it is not. The question is necessity. Necessary for whom? For me, of course. I only believe it is a necessity when the personal investment furthers one self and is of mutual consent. No one is forcing another and no one is cheating or lying. Here is a clear example that exists in reality, not in philosophy (again, this example is for Lumbee who believes in the analytic/synthetic dichotomy): My father is a self-proclaimed racist, xenophobe, and homophobe. He has told me and my family these things over and over during the past several decades. He believes that Blacks should not presidents and that Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are the most stupid of all Hispanic cultures. Furthermore, he says that women are submissive beings and should not be treated as equals because once you give women the same equal rights as men, then you have lesbians. Those are his words. I don't believe I should be personally invested in him. I find him to be a disvalue. I don't call him, I don't ask him for any guidance, I don't see a speck of virtue at all. But everyone says, "He's your father, Jose. You should love him and hold him in high regard just because he gave birth to you." I find that argument perverse and irrational, therefore, I merely dismiss it. I only personally invest in people whom I find to be of value to me. That is what Ms. Rand called rational self-interest. No surprise that I agree with her, right? LOL.
Jose, I agree that you should be free to handle your father however you see fit. I think one should be nice and respectful to his/her parents, but this does not require one to call, question, seek advice, give advice, or have any other type of relationship with them. I think you should always forgive, but you don't have to trust or relate.
Excuse my ignorance but, Jose, could you explain what you mean by the analytic/synthetic dichotomy? I think I know what you mean, but want to be sure.
Also, no surprise that you again worship at the alter of Ayn Rand. (an inside joke between the professor and myself guys)
Professor, I agree that blogs are not the best forum for debate, but I am not as interested in debating my preformed views as I am understanding my views and comparing them with others.
I agree with you on a critical aspect of family as community. As important as family can ideally be, the reality is that sometimes the family environment inherited is a toxic one. In these situations it is ever more critical to build a community outside of family. I commend you for separating yourself from negative influences. The separation from negative influences, however, doesn't necessarily preclude you from helping a family member out in a moment of need.
Let me try to make as clear as possible my position on government to provide background on this and future posts. I think you will agree that ideally, government is a consensual social contract between people. Proper government is a good and critical tool for the functioning of society. So I am not opposed to government, I am just opposed to government out of balance. In simplest terms, I would like to see multiple levels of government operating according to the principles of subsidiarity. The Federal (central) government should act only as a subsidiary function authorized only to tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. Most matters ought to be handled by smaller and more local authorities, all the way down to the neighborhood level. And I while I am a strong proponent of the free market in almost every instance, there are some things only gov't can accomplish. To accomplish these things, I am not opposed to taxes. In my ideal America, a person with a tax bill would send 50% of it to their county office, 30% to their state, and 20% to the feds. This reinforces both community and accountability. More details in a later post perhaps.
Lumbee, here is a good look at one of the variants of the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Most philosophers buy into this confusion, you do not. I misspoke earlier saying that you believe this; I should have said that you are aware of this and are quick to point it out. In the simplest terms, "it may work well in theory, but it doesn't work in practice" expression is what this article below is attacking. What Objectivists say is that if it works in theory, then it MUST work in practice. You can also read more at: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/analytic-synthetic_dichotomy.html.
"The failure to recognize that logic is man’s method of cognition, has produced a brood of artificial splits and dichotomies which represent restatements of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy from various aspects. Three in particular are prevalent today: logical truth vs. factual truth; the logically possible vs. the empirically possible; and the a priori vs. the a posteriori.
The theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy presents men with the following choice: If your statement is proved, it says nothing about that which exists; if it is about existents, it cannot be proved. If it is demonstrated by logical argument, it represents a subjective convention; if it asserts a fact, logic cannot establish it. If you validate it by an appeal to the meanings of your concepts, then it is cut off from reality; if you validate it by an appeal to your percepts, then you cannot be certain of it."
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Leonard Peikoff, “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,”
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 126
Post a Comment