I’m off to college next year. It’s
time to start figuring out what kind of life I want to lead. Do I want to live
my life altruistically and make as big an impact on the world as humanly
possible? Or should my primary goal be to forge a career path for myself and simply
to live a happy, ethical life?
Would I rather be off in some failed
state or be working comfortably in a Manhattan high-rise? Yes, those are
extreme and unlikely examples. But they’re both hypothetically possible for
someone with my set of interests. I recognize that the answer will, in all
likelihood, lie somewhere in between.
This should be a forum for me to do my
own thinking, and I hope you’ll keep checking back for the ride. It should be
interesting.
Ancient religious doctrines from ahimsa to zakat speak to the value of altruistic behavior. Machiavelli said infamously
that all men are essentially self-interested and evil; zoologists have observed
altruistic behavior in the animal kingdom; psychological egoists hold that we
give merely for our own self-gain, even if only for that small “reward” we feel
when we place a one-dollar bill in a donation jar or hold a door open for a
stranger. A surprising number of people take a stance on altruism as it relates
to human behavior.
Some have argued that it’s best to
just embrace self-interest. If everyone acts in their own self-interest, it is
best for the system. The Scottish economist Adam Smith wrote of an “invisible
hand” that would enable the forces of self-interest in a free market to benefit
all of society; the concept of realism in international relations is little
more than a nerdy glorification of self-interest.
So as far as this blog goes, topics
will run the gamut from my personal observations to international news, but it
will all be viewed through a lens of altruism versus self-interest. Some topics will be light-hearted and some
will be a little more weighty. (I have a hunch that a wildly amusing YouTube
video entitled “MUST WATCH -- ALTRUISTIC CATS! (Part 3/7)” will be more readily
available than one on psychology of self-interest as it pertains to
international relations theory.) But if it doesn’t interest me, I won’t waste
your time with it.
Re: "If everyone acts in their own self-interest, it is best for the system."
ReplyDeleteThis reminded me of the Poisonwood Bible, where the Prices seek to be altruistic, yet end up hurting everyone involved. To use your words, it would have been "better for the system" had they stayed in Bethlehem.
This begs the question of predictions: if we can't foresee possible negative consequences to our actions, how should that weigh in our calculations of self-interest vs. altruism? In the IR sphere, lots of international development aid gets misused or pilfered off.
I am curious whence cometh thy claim that Machiavelli postulated that men are essentially self-interested and evil. In neither The Prince or Discourses is the essential nature of man stressed. Perhaps it was thine intention rather to say Machiavelli seemed to favour the feared despot who rules ruthlessly or in a fashion that would generally be considered evil and self-interested, as has been said by thee. Also, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is more explicitly an idea concerning the efficient allocation of resources rather than positive externalities accrued by society. Of an other concern, thy first paragraph saith unto th' reader that there is a choice between an altruistic life and "[forging] a career path for [thyself] and simply to live a happy, ethical life," but methinks thou didst not intend for these lifestyles to appear as exclusive choices but rather as alternatives with the possibility of compromise betwixt them; id est, one can 'blend' them together, as it were. Prithee thou wilt make such distinctions unambiguous in the future. As well I implore thee to consider this: the apparent (or unapparent) human tendency to altruism at an individual level is actually a sort of selfishness, and when applied anonymously (i.e. precluding possibility of reciprocation), it is actually a mis-firing of self-interest (cf. Dawkins 1976); e.g., the oft-used idiom, 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
ReplyDeleteDear Zeno of Ela, I regret to inform thee that it is not I who has insufficiently perused the Machiavellian texts. Yes, it is true that Machiavelli seemed to favor of the ruler a veritably ruthless modus operandi, markedly more despotic than you or I might care to. Yet, his advocacy of a fearèd prince presupposes a state of human nature which is, indeed, self-interested. The ideas of self-interest and a preference for fear are inextricable in his infamous chapter of The Prince, entitled "Of Cruelty and Mercy, and Whether It Is Better To Be Feared Or Loved." He writes, "Men have less compunction about harming someone who has made himself loved than harming someone who has made himself feared, because love is held in place by chains of obligation, which, as men are evil, will quickly be broken if self-interest is at stake. But fear is held in place by a dread of punishment, which one can always rely on” (65). And thus, I entreat thee to re-examine The Prince with new eyes that thou mayest learn. Now, to rebut thine criticism regarding my alleged misrepresentation of the good Adam Smith, I shall put forth my argument by means of a rhetorical question, in part because I find your haughty language sufficiently ambiguous to require clarification: Is Adam Smith's doctrine, as outlined in The Wealth of Nations, even able to be understood without without first supposing the self-interested homo economicus? Is the "invisible hand" not a means by which self-interested competition benefits an economic system? Should thou afford me sufficient answers to these questions of mine, I shall defer to thee, as I presume thou art more knowledgeable than I about the writings of Mr. Smith. And upon reading thine final comments, in which thou hast disavowed a mutual exclusivity of altruism and self-interest, I concede the point nearly in toto. Did I not append the hypothetical examples of future employment opportunities by commenting that an ‘in between’ or ‘blend’, to use thine language, is not only a possibility, but a probable possibility? I find much wisdom in the idiom and in the idea of Mr. Dawkins’ which arise in thine critique. I suspect that the “mis-firing of self-interest” concept will be examined sufficiently on this blog. Moreover, I submit that I shall explore said concept in greater depth than my above post, which should be viewed not as a conclusive commentary, but an initiatory remark to “get the ball rolling” if you will. On another note, I would most appreciate it if thou would refrain from use of Middle English and Latin, ad nauseam, whilst submitting your acerbic commentary on this blog.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about intense western influence in Africa as it relates to colonialism and imperialism, I sometimes wonder what thinkers like Machiavelli might say. Self-interest and the incentive for self-gain is closely related to the propensity to exploit. For what other reasons did European powers slice and dice the continent apart from that of homo economicus? While I don't like to compare European imperial powers to mortgage sharks selling subprime products and bundling together collateralized debt obligations, both happened because there weren't rules, and "altruism" (it was that to the people who acted) had its way.
DeleteI'd like to toss into the discussion Kant's idea of the 'categorical imperative' - a progressive yet foundational idea in deontological studies. It allows us to pose the question and consider the consequences - what would the world be like if everyone acted in self interest? What would the world be like if everyone were philanthropic? The answer may point to the more desirable of the two. Sometimes, though, things can't be that way.
Several other extraneous points of order:
First - regarding your "get the ball rolling" euphemism - I will not.
Second - the free market will always be woefully insufficient. The invisible hand spurs business no more than trickle-down economics spurs progress.