On my way to the parking lot after class, I held a door for another student. It seems like a simple act but, after our intense discussion on self interest and morality, it served as a continuation to my internal debate.
Thrasymachus, Socrates, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Rand...each excerpt we read for class had an element of self-interest and morality, whether it was through a character (as Plato presented) or through the theorists themselves. This created a fairly heated debate as we attempted to muddle through the ideas of morality in terms of leadership and our daily lives. At the end of it, I felt that I could not effectively communicate my ideas. I’m not sure if it is because I am on the fence about my own beliefs—that I am easily swayed and confused by a modern form of Socrates’ dialectic—or if it is because I simply do not hold a popular opinion. And if my opinion is not popularly recognized, does that mean it is immoral according to American society? I’m not sure I’m ready to accept either of these conclusions.
Thus, I will try again to flesh out what I believe about ethics, humanity, and the moral code.
I am not denying that humans could be entirely self interested in their actions and judgments. A common theme presented itself in the readings: that one should have the ability to bring happiness and benefit to one’s life; a theme that could be easily interpreted as self interest. They differ, however, in their descriptions of the benefits and how they are achieved, sparking the negative connotation of self-interest.
For Hobbes, men are purely out for their own gain; there is no security as the weaker will band together to overthrow the stronger. For Hobbes, Justice is getting even with those around you as a result of jealousy. Because of this dark view of human self-interest, Hobbes argues that men are immoral and need laws to keep them civil.
In The Republic, Plato presents a discussion between Thrasymachus and Socrates about Justice. Thrasymachus, the Sophist, voices the idea that Justice provides advantage to injust people while ultimately hindering the person who is actually acting justly. Unlike Hobbes, he does not say that men do not have the ability to be just, but that it is less desirable for them. Thrasymachus’ argument is, of course, that there is no self-interested benefit in acting justly; rather, it is in the unjust act that there is a self-interested benefit; therefore injustice is the virtue.
While Socrates ultimately refutes the idea that injustice is a virtue, he does not refute the idea that Justice provides an advantage for others. For Socrates, this service to others is what makes Justice a virtue over injustice. He uses an example of a band of thieves: if they were entirely unjust, they would be at each other’s throats. But instead, they must be partially just as they are able to work together and help each other achieve a common goal. They are benefitted by each other, whether or not their ultimate goal is in fact a moral one (that is another argument in itself). Socrates continues, arguing that the virtue of Justice provides health to the soul – a greater advantage than wealth and power.
In short, although a just being may not be as monetarily successful as the lying, cheating, unjust person in power, he will still lead a better, happier, more fulfilled life because his soul is healthy through the virtue of Justice.
Now, isn’t this Ayn Rand’s argument as well? She states that we “must choose actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man—for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life.”
Rand, however, was using this goal of ultimate happiness in a different context. She argues that self interest is best – an argument that would seem to go right along with Thrasymachus’ original statement. However, Rand argues that “man is a standard for morality, but your own life is its purpose.” In society, we lay out certain moral codes that are generally accepted. We use them to determine standards for right and wrong based on public and private harm, public offense, and public and private benefit (as J.S. Mill outlined). Rand takes this idea of what is socially acceptable and challenges us to think about what we are doing and why we are doing it. You should not have to do something, or refrain from doing something, if you feel it is not helping you to fulfill and enjoy your life, whether or not it is considered “moral.” Although Rand takes an extreme to her argument in favor of self interest, I think we can apply a portion of her reasoning to create a balanced view of morality.
Some may say Rand’s argument is selfish – that we will collapse in to a state of war, unable to work together as we are always fighting for ourselves. Plato would argue that unless we could work for each other, we would never find Justice—what if one tried to justify killing a man because it contributed to the fulfillment of his life?
But even a serial killer cannot say he has thought about his personal choices and decided they were in his best interests. A serial killer begins killing slowly – it would seem that he takes pleasure from his actions. It would seem that he is doing exactly as Ayn Rand suggested. But as he continues killing, he begins to kill faster, going through what is called a spiral. He is going insane, until he can eventually no longer function. Now, I don’t know about you, but to me, this doesn’t sound like a fulfilled life – by neither Rand’s nor Plato’s standards. When one thinks about his actions and decisions as Rand suggests, he would realize that killing is not just, nor does it lead to fulfillment and happiness. He would become a rational, moral human being, able to discover the health of the soul that Plato held so highly.
Of the four, Plato, speaking through the character of Socrates, holds the most straightforwardly positive view of self interest. Though he, too, experienced the hardships of life his view is the least tainted by the corruption of humanity.
In class, before we discussed the above theorists, we discussed the transitions of the Chinese dynasties. Most interestingly, we discussed how the dynasties would begin strong and favorable to the people only to deteriorate in to corruption by the end. Machiavelli presents a similar idea. He directs leaders to be moral when possible, but also warns that leaders will inevitably need to become immoral lest they be overtaken by human immorality. Though I do not agree with Machiavelli’s motivations (to remain in power over people as a means to fulfill one’s own life), I am intrigued by his observation.
If I had let that door swing closed on that student after class; if I had sold my partnership for 4%; if I abandoned kindness and deserted true connections, I would be ahead and alone. I could trust no one, I could rely on no one – and so I would have rely on myself and protect myself against the enemies I may have made on my rise to the top. I’d become bitter and cold. I’d follow the trend of negative self interest. But when I think rationally about what I want to do for people, what I can do for people, and what I need to do for myself, I create harmony. I create a balance between service and success and I am fulfilled.
I don’t think that we are an entirely self-interested species. I think that we often have self-interested tendencies and that we often let ourselves go, but ultimately, we are motivated by something a little more complicated than that. Perhaps, if Plato’s dialectic between Socrates and Thrasymachus were to have continued, they would have discovered the true definition of justice to be balance.
Thrasymachus, Socrates, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Rand...each excerpt we read for class had an element of self-interest and morality, whether it was through a character (as Plato presented) or through the theorists themselves. This created a fairly heated debate as we attempted to muddle through the ideas of morality in terms of leadership and our daily lives. At the end of it, I felt that I could not effectively communicate my ideas. I’m not sure if it is because I am on the fence about my own beliefs—that I am easily swayed and confused by a modern form of Socrates’ dialectic—or if it is because I simply do not hold a popular opinion. And if my opinion is not popularly recognized, does that mean it is immoral according to American society? I’m not sure I’m ready to accept either of these conclusions.
Thus, I will try again to flesh out what I believe about ethics, humanity, and the moral code.
I am not denying that humans could be entirely self interested in their actions and judgments. A common theme presented itself in the readings: that one should have the ability to bring happiness and benefit to one’s life; a theme that could be easily interpreted as self interest. They differ, however, in their descriptions of the benefits and how they are achieved, sparking the negative connotation of self-interest.
For Hobbes, men are purely out for their own gain; there is no security as the weaker will band together to overthrow the stronger. For Hobbes, Justice is getting even with those around you as a result of jealousy. Because of this dark view of human self-interest, Hobbes argues that men are immoral and need laws to keep them civil.
In The Republic, Plato presents a discussion between Thrasymachus and Socrates about Justice. Thrasymachus, the Sophist, voices the idea that Justice provides advantage to injust people while ultimately hindering the person who is actually acting justly. Unlike Hobbes, he does not say that men do not have the ability to be just, but that it is less desirable for them. Thrasymachus’ argument is, of course, that there is no self-interested benefit in acting justly; rather, it is in the unjust act that there is a self-interested benefit; therefore injustice is the virtue.
While Socrates ultimately refutes the idea that injustice is a virtue, he does not refute the idea that Justice provides an advantage for others. For Socrates, this service to others is what makes Justice a virtue over injustice. He uses an example of a band of thieves: if they were entirely unjust, they would be at each other’s throats. But instead, they must be partially just as they are able to work together and help each other achieve a common goal. They are benefitted by each other, whether or not their ultimate goal is in fact a moral one (that is another argument in itself). Socrates continues, arguing that the virtue of Justice provides health to the soul – a greater advantage than wealth and power.
In short, although a just being may not be as monetarily successful as the lying, cheating, unjust person in power, he will still lead a better, happier, more fulfilled life because his soul is healthy through the virtue of Justice.
Now, isn’t this Ayn Rand’s argument as well? She states that we “must choose actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man—for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life.”
Rand, however, was using this goal of ultimate happiness in a different context. She argues that self interest is best – an argument that would seem to go right along with Thrasymachus’ original statement. However, Rand argues that “man is a standard for morality, but your own life is its purpose.” In society, we lay out certain moral codes that are generally accepted. We use them to determine standards for right and wrong based on public and private harm, public offense, and public and private benefit (as J.S. Mill outlined). Rand takes this idea of what is socially acceptable and challenges us to think about what we are doing and why we are doing it. You should not have to do something, or refrain from doing something, if you feel it is not helping you to fulfill and enjoy your life, whether or not it is considered “moral.” Although Rand takes an extreme to her argument in favor of self interest, I think we can apply a portion of her reasoning to create a balanced view of morality.
Some may say Rand’s argument is selfish – that we will collapse in to a state of war, unable to work together as we are always fighting for ourselves. Plato would argue that unless we could work for each other, we would never find Justice—what if one tried to justify killing a man because it contributed to the fulfillment of his life?
But even a serial killer cannot say he has thought about his personal choices and decided they were in his best interests. A serial killer begins killing slowly – it would seem that he takes pleasure from his actions. It would seem that he is doing exactly as Ayn Rand suggested. But as he continues killing, he begins to kill faster, going through what is called a spiral. He is going insane, until he can eventually no longer function. Now, I don’t know about you, but to me, this doesn’t sound like a fulfilled life – by neither Rand’s nor Plato’s standards. When one thinks about his actions and decisions as Rand suggests, he would realize that killing is not just, nor does it lead to fulfillment and happiness. He would become a rational, moral human being, able to discover the health of the soul that Plato held so highly.
Of the four, Plato, speaking through the character of Socrates, holds the most straightforwardly positive view of self interest. Though he, too, experienced the hardships of life his view is the least tainted by the corruption of humanity.
In class, before we discussed the above theorists, we discussed the transitions of the Chinese dynasties. Most interestingly, we discussed how the dynasties would begin strong and favorable to the people only to deteriorate in to corruption by the end. Machiavelli presents a similar idea. He directs leaders to be moral when possible, but also warns that leaders will inevitably need to become immoral lest they be overtaken by human immorality. Though I do not agree with Machiavelli’s motivations (to remain in power over people as a means to fulfill one’s own life), I am intrigued by his observation.
If I had let that door swing closed on that student after class; if I had sold my partnership for 4%; if I abandoned kindness and deserted true connections, I would be ahead and alone. I could trust no one, I could rely on no one – and so I would have rely on myself and protect myself against the enemies I may have made on my rise to the top. I’d become bitter and cold. I’d follow the trend of negative self interest. But when I think rationally about what I want to do for people, what I can do for people, and what I need to do for myself, I create harmony. I create a balance between service and success and I am fulfilled.
I don’t think that we are an entirely self-interested species. I think that we often have self-interested tendencies and that we often let ourselves go, but ultimately, we are motivated by something a little more complicated than that. Perhaps, if Plato’s dialectic between Socrates and Thrasymachus were to have continued, they would have discovered the true definition of justice to be balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment