As an Objectivist, it immediately struck me as
corrupt. Not for the concern for others: Who would not want those things? But
for the moral inversion implicit in the hierarchy of “I WANTS”.
The first principle of caring for one another is
to respect other people’s moral right to live by their own judgement, for their
own sake, in pursuit of the values that can make their own lives the best they
can be. These are the only lives any of us will ever have. One’s primary
concern should be to make one’s own life the best and happiest it can
be, without guilt and apology. There could be room for concern for other
concerns, of course. The first moral principle is to achieve one’s own wants,
and that principle should be reflected in how one treats others. To say otherwise
is to foster envious, predatory exploitation. After all, what does it mean to
“never have to worry about food and shelter and heat?” Those basic necessities
don’t grow in the wild, ready to be picked. They must be produced by human
work. Can we imply from that “I want” that other people owe me those things so
I don’t have to “worry” myself about them?
So count me out. The implication is that it’s
more right to put other people’s needs above our own. This has the fingerprints
of Judeo-Christian ethics all over it, and I find that moral premise cruel and
inhumane and a reversal of cause-and-effect. Judeo-Christian ethics holds that
morality has nothing to do with self-interest, but concerns only your actions
as they pertain to the benefit of others. What you need to do to make your own
life good deserves no moral guidance, say the Judeo-Christians.
Don’t believe me? I was watching a segment of
Fox News. The subject was private businesses aiding victims of Hurricane
Harvey. One guest said the self-interest of the businesspersons drove their
benevolence. Another responded that self-interest is not enough: It must be
grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics. In other words, one must pay penance in
terms of self-sacrifice to atone for the sin of self-interest. The other
replied—and I’m paraphrasing from memory—“No. Self-interest is enough. The
businessperson doesn’t need morality”[!] Well, why isn’t a self-interested
motive moral? This is the corruption of Judeo-Christian ethics at work. (Both,
by the way, are advocates of capitalism and regulars on Fox News. No one
challenged their implicit assumption that the self-interest of businesspersons,
as such, is immoral, or at best amoral. But that’s a subject for another day.
In the meantime, I suggest Capitalism,
The Unknown Ideal and The
Capitalist Manifesto.).
But there are all kinds of decisions that
require an answer to the question—good or bad for me. Should I do
recreational drugs—or not; what kind of career best suits me; how do I balance
the need to financially support my family with their need for my time and
attention; the list is open-ended. Yet Judeo-Christian ethics tells you need no
moral guidance—that you need to “tame” your self-interest with “doing
good”—self-sacrificially serving others. Self-interest, we’re told, is a
necessary evil. It is something low or dirty or sinful. True, they say, you
have to be self-interested to live. But that is man’s original sin.
I couldn’t disagree more. “Good or bad, right or
wrong?”: Why does that moral question only apply to others, but not to oneself?
In fact, Judeo-christian ethics implies a corrupt moral inversion: that living
off of others is the good, but self-support is immoral. Think about it. If
being moral means the unrewarded duty to serve others, then it stands to reason
that others must live for you. Who wins? Obviously, the moocher. One “jus’sayin”
correspondent captured the essence of the corruption: “All those things you want just
happen to be what I need, when can I expect them from these people who care?”
Of course, nothing about self-interest—the real
kind, rational self-interest—forbids good will, compassion, or charity toward
people or causes that are consistent with one’s capabilities and values. There
are all kinds of self-interested reasons for doing “good works.” But the good
of others is logically not, and in reason should not, be the moral standard for
our life choices. The sooner people recognize that and respect that in others,
the better our world will be. Experience has shown this to be not only good
morals, but good practically.
Self-interest is the driving force of life and
flourishing. It is self-interest—“I WANT -I WANT -I WANT”—that drives people to
work and produce to enrich their own lives. And self-interest has a wonderful
derivative effect; through trade, we enrich the lives of others. Self-interest
fosters win-win relationships, with people getting better together, each in
pursuit of her own self-interest. “I WANT” leads people to become doctors to
heal the sick; to achieve the affluence to satisfy their WANT to adopt orphan
children; to become farmers and grocery store owners to provide food; to become
builders and tradesmen to provide homes; to seek a career in energy production
to provide fuel for heating systems. It is the “I WANT -I WANT -I WANT” that
incentivizes people to work in a field of choice to be able to buy all of
those. There is no dichotomy of “I WANTS.” With everything you buy, you are
benefitting from the self-interest of someone you don’t even know seeking to
fulfill the “I WANTS” that helps him flourish. Self-interest is all around us.
It should not be a guilty endeavor. Judeo-Christian ethics, a.k.a. altruism,
requires lose-win—someone must lose, that the other must win. Self-interest is
built on win-win; people getting better, not at others’ expense, but together.
It is the greatest good.
Self-interest is integral to human nature, as it
is in some sense for all life forms. All life forms, including the most simple
and primitive, must act to gain the values their lives depend upon. People are
no different. To live, people must act to gain values. Self-interest is not a
necessary evil that must be justified by cheap slogans—especially slogans
backed by compulsion of government welfare that forces others to pay for the
luxury of those wants (where’s the “care for one another” in that?) The goods
we need to live and flourish don’t just happen. They must be created by effort.
When you hear someone say “I WANT” and is willing to work for it, you have
encountered the most virtuous type of person. This is a person who doesn’t
fantasize about living in some Garden of Eden where every need is miraculously
provided for. Nor does he expect others to provide it. The virtuous person does
worry about how he will fulfill his needs and wants, because that is what his
nature and responsible living demands. He doesn’t fantasize about a world where
“people . . . never have to worry about food and shelter and heat” and
everything else life requires, because he knows that such a world doesn’t
exist.
Self-interest is a vital good—and by logical
extension the foundation of a free, progressive, prosperous, benevolent society
of win-win relationships. Self-interest is life. Anti-self-interest is
anti-life. I am pro-life. So I won’t repost this. As I said at the outset, the
first principle of caring for one another is to respect other people’s moral
right to live by their own judgement, for their own sake, in pursuit of the
values that can make their own lives the best they can be. And that principle
should be reflected in both our private lives and in our politics.
Related Reading;
No comments:
Post a Comment