Does self interested behaviour add to the shared satisfaction of other members of society
The central theorist here is Adam Smith. In his book “The Wealth of Nations” Smith claims that much of the wealth we enjoy comes from self interested individuals entering into an exchange economy. The pursuit of individual rewards results in cooperative enterprises, specialisation and trade all of which increases the overall wealth of those engaged in the economy.
As a view it has appeal because many people like to think that pursuing self interest is both materially enriching and morally good.
But despite it’s appeal, t is philosophically thin. Many philosopher see its conclusion as contingent. There is no clear reason why self interest produces shared good. That only happens if the conditions are right
Adam Smith was aware of the issue and believed that the benefits of markets driven by self interested parties would only accrue subject to a number of conditions. Some are worth noting here 1) rule of law 2) competition 3) public goods provided by government 4) people generally behave honestly and create trust
The point of this post is not whether Smith was right about the economy, thats a question for economists, but to introduce the wider philosophical issue.
Self interest can produce better outcomes for other social actors but there is no guarantee of that and it is only likely under conditions where there is effective regulation, constraints and shared values.
Sounds reasonable. But isn’t it the case that there’s no guarantee that any political, philosophical, or religious position will produce good outcomes? It always depends on situational factors and the people interpreting and applying it. What’s that Woody Allen gag again? “I believe in total, honest democracy. I also believe the American system can work.”
Yes if you were to push me _ I think unregulated markets and central command economies predictably produce poor outcomes. Mixed markets potentially work better but I have to admit that they still face profound economic problems.
Are conditions 3 and 4 even feasible? Egoism will always lead to the unification of capital and state power (because that is the ultimate personal gain). And the truthfulness and trustworthiness of selfish people seems like an oxymoron.
I’m not sure there’s that much to debate to be honest.
The overall success of capitalism means few people would argue that self interest never produces good social outcomes.
But the position that it always produces good social outcomes seems self evidently absurd.
So the only room for debate is in what level of regulation, state sponsorship etc is optimal. But if I’m reading the OP right, that’s off topic.
I have two questions. 1. Has the existing social system improved people’s lives, or has scientific and technological progress led to a better life? 2. Would scientific and technological progress have been possible under a different social system?
Adam Smith didn’t think that people were solely motivated by self interest. He thought like Hume, who was a close friend, that people were born with a range of dispositions and sentiments.
The assumption here is that self-interest is some kind of pursuit of reward, like greed. But one could also pursue the betterment of his neighbors, do so at his own loss and sacrifice, and still operate in complete self-interest. You do it because you get more satisfaction, happiness, delight, out of doing it than you would get out of not doing it.
That’s why altruism as the opposite of egoism is more an admission of guilt than benevolence. The altruist finds no delight or satisfaction in the benefitting others. Perhaps it’s a chore…who knows?
At any rate, a crowd of people who find satisfaction and happiness in working together seems far more appealing, moral, and conducive to a shared good than a group of people who do not.
As I said, the assumption here is that self-interest is “the pursuit of individual rewards”, not that “people always and only act to pursue thier rational self interest”.
Also, I explained why self-interest benefits society. “a crowd of people who find satisfaction and happiness in working together seems far more appealing, moral, and conducive to a shared good than a group of people who do not.”
Bear in mind however that it difficult to change peoples dispositions but is at least possible to redesign regulations, constraints and shared values to improve outcomes for them.
I would point to the work of Elinor Olstom in “Governing the Commons” where she addresses previously intractable problems of self interest (and destructive behaviour) and shows how better governance can resolve those problems.
“Governance” (by which we invariably mean oligarchy) has been tried unsuccessfully and in every conceivable combination for thousands and thousands of years. One can literally watch the laws increase in size and volume, for instance the United States Code, which would take a lifetime to read. The UK still has laws from the 13th century, and has never stopped legislating them.
In fact we have compounded regulation and governance for thousands of years and there is no indication that “shared satisfaction” is any better than it was at the beginning of time.
It depends on how you look at it. Slave codes substantially benefitted slavers. The Volstead Act benefitted Al Capone.
My view is wholly pessimistic and cynical. The point of the whole regulatory apparatus in the first place is not only to benefit some and to punish others, but to protect the state’s own monopoly on crime. They do so by using legal force to exploit the population, to appropriate resources and privileges without producing them, and then using these resources and privileges to enforce the rules of a ruling class.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a professional doer-of-good, making laws and regulations that benefit everyone. Most people can’t govern their own lives, let alone those of an entire population.