Image credit |
Go here for a German variant of the below English post.
Hier geht es zu einer deutschen Variante des untenstehenden englischen Posts.
I have written this post in April 2012, at a time when I was still leaning strongly in the direction of libertarianism. However, there is little in it that I would retract or qualify.
⃟
While I consider this article by Dwight R. Lee a good read, I differ with the author's conclusion
that self-interest is not good or bad, but an unalterable fact of life.
I would argue that self-interest is good - and not bad - in that it
is a fundamental part of human nature and as such a requirement not only
for man's survival but also for his continuous improvement, materially
and spiritually.
There are two aspects to my argument, the first, I have written about before. So I touch on it only briefly.
I.
Every human being is an individual, separate from every other
individual, and must therefore perceive and cope with the world in a way
unique to himself. Inevitably, he has concerns alone to himself. Man
quite simply does not have the perspective of another person but only
his, he does not live the life of another person but his life, and he
does not have the needs of another person but his own needs. If he does
not know how to heed his very own concerns he cannot but (a) damage
himself seriously and ultimately mortally, and he will (b) lose the
ability to improve himself and to make his best contribution to the
improvement of his fellows.
The idea of freedom is essentially the idea of personal freedom, the
need of which is based on the recognition of point (b) above.
[In the meantime, I have come to support a broader understanding of freedom. Personal freedom remains a central aspect of liberty, but it is part of a network of interacting nodes representing other requirements of freedom — like the need for and the rules of scientific, economic, and political competition, all of which modify the scope of personal freedom.]
The constructive and conducive aspects of self-interest are manifold,
complex and absolutely indispensable for human survival and
advancement. Unfortunately they are only too often swept aside by
crudely equating the concern of the individual for himself with greed or
other forms of objectionable misconduct. This habit appears to be a
remnant of the times when the individual was constantly and brutally
bullied and terrorised by the tribal collective. Today, the ideological
war on self-interest is part of the efforts to turn human beings into
mere means for the ends of the powerful.
II.
The second aspect that is even more pervasively overlooked concerns
the nature of human needs. I mention this aspect because it leads me to
the conclusion that man must and ought to strive for ever growing
wealth. If this desire for more wealth is crudely equated with greed
(which is silly) then greed is morally desirable - as one might argue
for rhetorical effect, while correctly speaking greed is bad, of course,
and self-interest good in the above sense. In fact, what is bad about
greed is that it represents an overdoing, a transgression of the right
measure of something, an excess beyond the harmless or wholesome,
whereas an excess of self-interest does not make conceptual sense as
defined above, since it would imply a violation of self-interest by
self-interest.
The crux: the way in which human beings adapt to their environment is
by having and satisfying desires/needs. The greater the variety,
variability and degree of differentiation of a specie's ability to have
and satisfy needs/desires, the greater its ability to fit successfully
with the wider environment. So the ability to constantly renew, extend
and grow this ability is key to survival and advancement.
Now, what is wealth? Wealth consists of things and practices that
enable man to satisfy his desires/needs. Hence, if an open-ended
development of desires is an anthropological sine qua non and
the key to continuous successful adaptation to a changing and changed
environment, then incessantly growing wealth is just as important.
If man's ability to adapt to and advance in his environment is
damaged and curtailed, he suffers impoverishment (relative to the
unhampered presence of this ability), even to a degree that may well
lead to stark poverty, misery, and death.
Truncating, inhibiting or fully precluding man's ability to develop
and satisfy ever more desires/needs and hence to build up more and more
wealth is quite simply inhumane. Not to mention that resource-intensive
ambitions like comprehensive environmental protection cannot be achieved
unless a high level of wealth is achieved and maintained.
No comments:
Post a Comment