This topic is another of the significant examples I promised to provide of how the Law of Personal Interest operates in society.
In my previous posts on this forum—“An Examination of the Role of Personal Interest in Human Life,” “On Injustice…” “Is Corruption Inevitable from a Philosophical Perspective” in the Social Philosophy category, and “On Human Selfishness and the Pattern of Personal Interest” in the Ethics category, I have repeatedly asserted and attempted to consistently substantiate the existence of a certain pattern in the motivation behind human behavior in various situations. I have provisionally named this pattern the “Law of Personal Interest” (abbreviated as LPI). Since this article is largely a further development of the aforementioned publications, those who are not familiar with them may wish to review them for a deeper and more detailed understanding of THIS topic. If you have objections specifically regarding the existence of the Law of Personal Interest, I suggest we continue that part of the discussion there so as not to stray from the topic of this thread.”
Here, I will simply recall the very formula of this law of human existence:
“Most people, in most situations, are guided by personal interest and personal gain.”
In the aforementioned topics, I have demonstrated through numerous real-life examples that, in most life situations, a person acts in their own personal interest and for their own personal benefit. They take rational actions to maintain or improve their own lives and the lives of their loved ones: they earn a living, build a house, or buy an apartment; they furnish their homes with everything necessary, enhance their comfort, and satisfy their physical, cultural, informational, spiritual, and other interests. This is natural, normal, and necessary for people to fulfill their natural needs and desires and to solve various problems. Without such activities, people would be unable to build a normal life, achieve success, or reach their goals.
These are real-life examples where the law of self-interest plays a positive role, serves a useful function, and, as a rule, does no harm to anyone. But above the law mentioned above stands another, stronger philosophical law of dialectics—the law of the unity and struggle of opposites. Therefore, many social phenomena have not only positive but also negative manifestations.
And, as a result, the law of personal interest has, in addition to its positive aspects, its own quite significant negative manifestations. It is precisely these that I want to discuss in this topic.
The fact is that a person’s personal interests often overlap with the interests of another person, other people, or society. And this is where a conflict of interests arises—between this person’s personal interest and the interests of those whose sphere it encroaches upon. Conflicts of interest often give rise to real conflicts. These conflicts take various forms: at the mildest, they involve insults, arguments, shoving, and scuffles. But beyond that, attempts to satisfy one’s material interests lead to violence, looting, theft, and even murder, battles, and wars. All these conflicts give rise to injustice, suffering, pain, misfortune, harm to health and property, and breed evil.
Where a person who seeks to satisfy their interests at the expense of others—whom I call an aggressive egoist—is unable to achieve their criminal goals alone, they band together into groups: packs, gangs, clans—and commit violence, generating even more evil, now on a societal scale.
Next, let us consider another sphere of social life: the social (political) classes of employers and employees—slave owners and slaves, feudal lords and dependent peasants, landowners and serfs, capitalists and workers. These are all large groups of people called classes, and each is united by common or similar personal interests. And the personal interests of one class, as a rule, conflict with the personal interests of the opposing class. This gives rise to riots, uprisings, revolutions, and so on. The result is suffering, death, and ruin.
And what is the root cause? In the desire of each side of the conflict to satisfy its own personal interests (including those that are generalized and shared by the entire community)
Wars between nations and states have the same cause: the personal interests of leaders, generals, kings, and tsars—in seizing foreign lands, acquiring foreign wealth, and gaining glory. The rank-and-file soldiers of the aggressor also have their own interests—to obtain war booty and become wealthy (if the soldier is participating in the war voluntarily). If conscripted, there is still an interest: it is better to join the army than to be executed for refusal. And there is also the chance to capture trophies.
The defending side also has a common interest, but one that is just—to protect themselves, their families, their property, and their territory—which is a generalization of their personal interests. The result is a clash of interests: battles, destruction, wounds, maiming, deaths, captivity, and so on. And this evil arises from the pursuit of personal interests in opposition to the interests of other parties to the conflict.
There are many examples—and everyone can name some.
I have already written about ZOI as the main cause of injustice in a separate thread.
Now let’s look at the problem from another angle: here is a general list of sins condemned in the Bible.
• lying,
• false testimony,
• slander and abusive language;
• envy;
• greed (love of money);
• theft;
• fraud;
• unjust gain;
• bribery,
• heartlessness
• cruelty,
• hatred,
• quarrels and discord;
• murder
• illicit enrichment,
• misappropriation of another’s property,
• debauchery
Look at them closely and consider: which of these sins is not a consequence of the desire to satisfy personal interests at the expense of others?
One could examine in detail here how each of these examples of evil is linked to personal interest in the form of gross material and non-material gain. But surely everyone can analyze this on their own and draw their own conclusions.
Perhaps sins such as heartlessness and cruelty can sometimes be attributed to natural pathological flaws in human nature.
Thus, in my opinion, the examples given are sufficient to confirm the conclusion:
the negative component of the law of self-interest—specifically, that part of it expressed as aggressive selfishness—is the source of most human sins, injustices, suffering, poverty, violence, and deaths on earth, which can perhaps be summed up in a single unifying word: “EVIL”
Of course, this is a sad conclusion. But, unfortunately, this flip side of the Law of Self-Interest is a reality of real life.
But for those of you who are disheartened by this aspect of peronal interest, I ask you to wait just a little longer. Because I’m planning to publish at least two posts very soon that will greatly delight both you and me. These will be examples of the Law of Personal Interest in action that are extremely beneficial.
Egoism is a live option. There are philosophers like Ayn Rand (?) who’ve said that there’s no shame in being self-interested. It comports with the last paragraph that self-interest can be beneficial.
Yeah, I can’t see any problem with being self-interested. The issue arises with the fact that this isn’t a default mode for most (counter to the post). Most seem to act with other’s interests in mind. I’m not sure how I would go about enumerating objections to the OP, because at-base I don’t take it’s premise.
That said, I think Parfit made a really good go of talking about self-interest, why it doesn’t quite make sense, and why it is the case that most people are not all that self-interested anyway! One way of outlining his thesis there could be that The Self-Interest Theory is often presented as a psychological claim—that people are in fact motivated primarily by their own interests. Parfit argues this is plainly false. Ordinary experience shows that people frequently act from love, loyalty, duty, generosity, or commitment to ideals, even when these conflict with what would best serve their own interests.
It then talks about how the real philosophical question is therefore not whether people do pursue self-interest, but whether they ought to. The conclusion is something like “almost always no” I tend to agree with both his take on S theory and the conclusion that S theory probably isn’t heplful to humans
I found your post interesting. It seems clear from the text that you are genuinely concerned about humanity’s problems, and your words are written with sincerity. Moreover, after reading it, one gets the impression that you have personally experienced these experiences, and your text represents a profound personal reflection and attempt to assimilate, rationally, and consistently present what you consider evil.
As a logical conclusion to your line of reasoning, you arrive at a connection between the personal (selfish) interest of the individual and the adverse consequences, in the form of “evil,” for others.
Well, I seem to have heard all this somewhere before. For example, in Christianity, and before that, in the ancient Greek philosophers. The well-known conflict between personal interests and the interests of the group. Consequently, the traditional solution to this conflict is to moderate (correlate) one’s interests to the interests of the group, of society, to an appropriate degree, which should lead to a certain balance and harmony.
I believe there are no obvious logical holes in this reasoning, and for a contemporary, they are even self-evident and require no further proof.
But where, in my view, the real problems arise is in defining the criteria by which personal interests should be moderated. In defining the public interests themselves. In defining the boundaries of individual participation in society and society’s participation in individual.
This is where humanity has tried many things. At least over the past several thousand years.
After all, the problem is not so much establishing the fact that “evil” is bad, but rather establishing the content of the concept of “evil” itself; then, in investigating the origins of this concept; and then, in clarifying the necessity of this concept itself for regulating human relations.
What is considered proper? What is considered necessary? What is considered right or wrong? What are the criteria for determining what should be considered right? And finally, why is it inherent in our species to divide things into right and wrong?
As we can see, this is precisely what has preoccupied the minds of thinkers throughout the history of philosophy. And it still worries me.
Thus, some unexpected conclusions emerge.
It turns out that it’s not only “evil” as such that can be seen as the source of troubles. It turns out that it’s not only a person’s self-interest that can be the source of problems. Here, philosophers, for example, reflect on the extent to which self-interest is “personal” and the extent to which it is shaped by social norms, culture, and discourse.
In a recent thread on this forum, I wrote a little about misanthropy, which can arise precisely in the most consistent followers of moral norms. A misanthropy that subsequently becomes the basis for aggression and hatred.
Look at the mechanism.
A person so deeply internalizes certain moral norms—that is, ideas about good and evil, right and wrong—that they discover a discrepancy with these norms in virtually everyone around them. And then, the very adherence to a moral norm can become the basis for aggression.
There is another example. Take the Crusades. They can be explained by the interests of states and rulers, economic interests, political circumstances, and a host of other factors. But what about an individual who set out on a crusade, guided by the notion of establishing goodness and justice?
His immediate motive might not have been personal material interest at all. On the contrary, he might sincerely believe he was acting in the name of good.
What could this lead to, if not violence, suffering, and injustice?
These examples show that it’s not only personal interest—in the sense you use the term—that can lead to disaster. The problem, perhaps, runs deeper than the simple need to “tame” personal interest.
And here, in my view, a more difficult question arises: if personal interest must be limited, then who, by what means, and on what basis determines the boundaries of this limitation?
What exactly is the “public interest”?
Who has the right to determine that one interest is legitimate and another selfish?
Where is the line drawn between a permissible human interest and an interest that should be considered evil?
This, it seems to me, is where a much more complex philosophical problem begins.
Therefore, I find your post interesting precisely as a starting point for further exploration. Perhaps the problem lies not so much in the very existence of personal interest, but in our attempts to determine how personal interests should relate to one another and to some supposed “common good.”
I think this is an excellent starting point for endless exploration and discovery. I wish you success in your endeavors.
@Astorre.
Thank you for your comment and kind words. It’s not something you often see among philosophers right from the start of a discussion.
I’ve carefully considered your perspective on the issues related to mitigating the negative consequences of prioritizing personal interest. There are many of them, and I need to think carefully about my response. For now, I can only say that, in my view, personal interest continues to be a significant cause of evil,regardless of the success of efforts to combat it.
“There are philosophers, such as Ayn Rand (?), who have said that there is nothing shameful about being selfish.”
Here, I don’t entirely agree with either you or Ayn Rand—if she really did say exactly that. It depends on the degree of selfishness. Aggressive selfishness (as I define it) cannot be considered ethical
What do you think about whether prioritizing personal interest is truly the source of most of the evil in the world?
To me non-selfishness is an ideal. We all fall short of the glory of God. I suggest an experiment to settle the matter. Set aside 50 days or whatever number of days works for you. Randomly assign half (25) to the control group and the other half (the other 25) to the test group. On test/treatment days be unselfish and on control days be selfish. Measure your happiness with a scale of your own construction (0 for not happy at all, to 5 for very happy). Use statistics to compare the mean happiness scores. Is there a difference, is the difference statistically significant? Re-randomizing the data with 1000 simulations should be helpful.
@ Amadeus.
My friend, I’ll respond to your comment point by point.
1. “Yes, I don’t see any problem with being selfish.”
Why don’t you see it? So-called aggressive egoists (according to my classification, or any other)—when they aggressively ignore everyone else for the sake of their own interests—isn’t that a problem?
2. “Most people, it seems, act with the interests of others in mind.”
This is precisely my concept of “rational selfishness,” in which a person prioritizes their own personal interests but remains mindful of the interests of others and even sometimes sacrifices their own for the benefit of others. And modern psychology shows that about 50% of people are like this, and this stems from their ancient instinct for self-preservation—including, in part, a genetic basis. Moreover, psychology is based on objective scientific research, not on our philosophical musings and wishful thinking.
Jesus Christ advocated and preached morality, even to the point of “giving away one’s last shirt,” not to mention turning the other cheek. So, has humanity reached this state? Yet personal interest has played a decisive role in motivating human actions, and even according to Parfit—who argued that “a person’s own well-being is their highest rational goal”—this remains largely the case. Although I do not dispute that in economically developed, civilized countries, people have largely learned to curb harmful selfishness, and thanks to the high standard of living enjoyed by both ordinary and wealthy people, they can afford to be increasingly altruistic.
Now let’s return to your arguments. If you add up your “MAJORITY” with the aggressive egoists, you’ll get an even larger majority. And if you add the so-called “fourth situation” to that, then that will be my premise about the majority—the one you “don’t believe in” but which you yourself confirm in your own quotes.
3. “Common experience shows that people often act out of love, loyalty, duty, generosity, or devotion to ideals, even when this contradicts what would best serve their own interests.” This is about Parfit.
The key word here is “often.” I don’t deny that this happens often, but not more often than when they engage in activities that are personally beneficial to them.
4. Back to Parfit: first, he himself derived the S-theory as a fact, stating that “a person’s own well-being is their highest rational goal.”
And second, he did not reject this conclusion of his as a fact; he merely believes that it would be desirable for these same people not to pursue their “highest rational goal”—their own well-being. This is the dream and goal of all proponents of ethics. But I have written many times that these are different things: what is desirable and what actually is.
5. “It goes on to say that the true philosophical question lies not in whether people strive for their own benefit, but in whether they ought to do so.”
This is asserted by virtually all proponents of ethical philosophy who have commented on my formulation of the law of self-interest, because they believe that this is how it should be. And why, in doing so, do they deny the right to call what actually is a true philosophical question? And not just what is, but what has always been the case for millennia among all peoples. Does this not pertain to the paramount philosophical question of being?
I just read a good book that gives some scientific weight to that: “Humankind: A Hopeful History”. It’s not perfect—there’s some cherry picking—but it does effectively dismantle some widely accepted experimental evidence that would support the selfishness theory..
The Buddhists have the anatman doctrine. It’s a clear denial of the self. I’ve managed to get some peeps to share their views on it. The takeway is the interdependent nature of things. Remove the screws and the printer falls apart; remove the ink cartridge, same problem; remove the cable, same; and so on. Our self is like the printer, an assemblage of parts. There’s a sutra that beautifully explains anatman with a chariot.
Personal interest is to act in our own favor. This is good because one has to look out for oneself. As I suggested, do an experiment - you don’t need a fancy lab. The truth is out there.
I’ve already replied to you via the experiment on your profile
This is a bit of a misguided question. I don’t see it. I cna’t tell you why, because I’m illustrating that I dont see something, so there’s nothing to explain. As to your question here: No, not really. I see the consequences when they come up, but on it’s face, I don’t see an issue. Though, when you drill down, it gets irrational fairly quickly.
Sure, but I’ve used the term “most”. I think this is the case and not your description.
Scarcely does there exist anything objective in psychology. But i also suggest digging into those studies will present interesting things, for instance, sacrificing for one’s family is often considered “self” interest. The majority of adults live in that light.
No, and why would I care? Jesus wasn’t a prophet, if he existed, and I have no interest in a continuation of Christian worldviews.
You’ve noted quoted me accurately or conveniently so it’s really hard to know what you’re referring to off the top of my head as I go on here..
Given that there is a significant overlap, I think tihs is obviously false.
I think its possible you have seriously mis-attributed or even misread Parfit. Not much of what you’ve said would be recognized by him.
No. No it does not.
Dear participants in “Ethics” who have taken an interest in my topics, in which I discussed such negative manifestations of the law of self-interest in society as a source of injustice and evil on earth. In those posts, I promised to provide examples of the positive effects of this law. I published such a post today in the “Social Philosophy” category under the title “The Philosophical Law of Self-Interest—in Economics”
Those who are interested are welcome to read it.
First of all, I’d like to thank you for your detailed, thoughtful, and—on the whole—positive response to my post. I’ve finally been able to write my reply to you, for which I wanted to prepare properly.
1. At the outset, you place considerable emphasis on the need to define terms such as “personal interest,” “good,” “evil,” “right,” “wrong,” “proper,” and “necessary.”
I take a simpler approach to this, because in principle, in the real lives of non-philosophers (a group to which I count myself), few people know these definitions, but that doesn’t prevent them from generally understanding them adequately.
- Personal interest (my personal definition of this concept, presented in the topic “An Exploration of the Role of Personal Interest in Human Life,” which you can find in the “Social Philosophy” category)
“By ‘personal interests,’ I mean all of a person’s needs, desires, goals, dreams, and aspirations that they consider personally meaningful and that motivate their actions.
Such interests can be both material and immaterial: physical, emotional, cognitive, creative, aesthetic, spiritual, and so on.”
When I tried to find definitions of the terms “evil” and “good” on Wikipedia, I immediately got bogged down in the vast array of research on this topic across various religions, theories, and sciences. And I never did find suitable definitions for these concepts. Therefore, I will put it this way:
As for the precise definitions of “good” and “evil,” “right,” “wrong,” “proper,” and “necessary,” I will not delve into these questions for now; I’ll leave them for those interested to explore, while I’ll stick to the words I quoted above:
“Few people know these definitions, but that doesn’t prevent them from generally understanding them adequately.”
As for defining the concept of “evil” in my thread, I’ll limit myself to the biblical sins I listed there. Anyone who wishes to do so may add to this list. But I don’t think the lack of precise definitions for these concepts significantly hinders understanding of the idea I’m presenting in my thread.
2. I have examined my approach to the concept of selfishness in detail in the thread “On Human Selfishness and the Law of Self-Interest” in the “Ethics” category.
3. As for the Crusades, an explanation of this issue can likely be found in the theory of just and unjust wars. And the violence and injustice that arise in this context are an expression of aggressive selfishness, which here is an extreme manifestation of the personal interests of the parties to the conflict—a point I addressed here in my thread.
4. “And here, in my opinion, a more complex question arises: if personal interest must be limited, then who, by what means, and on what grounds determines the limits of this restriction?”
“Who has the right to determine that one interest is legitimate and another is selfish?
Where does the line lie between a permissible human interest and an interest that should be considered evil?
It seems to me that this is where a much more complex philosophical problem begins.”
5. It seems to me that I encountered the answer to this question in Thomas Hobbes, whom I recently became acquainted with:
“The limits on personal interest and everyone’s natural right to everything are determined by the sovereign (the state, represented by a single person or an assembly) through civil laws. This occurs through a voluntary social contract, in which people renounce their right to act arbitrarily for the sake of security, transferring the right to establish rules to a single, strong authority. …Through general laws, the power of coercion, reason, and security.”
I generally agree with this.
6. “It turns out that not only ‘evil’ as such can be regarded as the source of problems. It turns out that not only human selfishness can be the source of problems. ”
I agree with your opinion here and would be grateful if you could provide such examples so that I might reflect on them. Nevertheless, I still believe that the primary source of evil is the negative manifestations of self-interest.
In closing, I would like to once again express my gratitude to you for your serious and thoughtful analysis of my topic.
Greetings!
You’re always welcome. Especially since the things you discussed struck me as very relatable. Relatable, primarily because I once approached philosophy with similar premises. After all, what could be simpler: if everyone moderated their ardor, if everyone understood the self-evident, then 90% of humanity’s problems would disappear.
So, first and foremost, I appreciate your intentionality, or the direction of your vision.
And here, perhaps, I’d like to explain a little why I paid so much attention to the question of definitions. You write that you consider yourself a non-philosopher, and that in everyday life, people are quite capable of adequately understanding things like good and evil, even without strict definitions. I generally understand what you’re saying. In fact, I once thought something similar myself.
It all started with short essays—full of enthusiasm and a call to the reader. “Look, reader, look here, it’s all simple. Here it is—the truth!” And then I truly “knew the right way,” or at least I was sure of it.
Then I hit a turning point: I wanted to speak and write more precisely, I wanted to parry questions, I wanted to avoid speaking with bias. Thus, the genie was let out of the bottle, and to this day I haven’t been able to put it back.
So I’d like to share my experience with you. You can write and speak persuasively without delving into philosophy. Some people live like that their entire lives. They publish books, maintain blogs, and have fans and readers. That’s enough for many.
But when you turn to philosophy, when you seriously immerse yourself in it, at some point you discover that wandering through these theoretical castles becomes an end in itself. You gain more sophistication, deftly deconstruct any concept, and in a debate, your opponent’s arguments no longer matter so much to you, because you’re capable of redefining the very field of debate—if you so choose.
This is all great, but the distance from the common man grows. You become strange. And, to some extent, lonely.
I’d even introduce such an indicator. When, in justifying your position, you can afford to say, “Good is X simply because everyone knows it,” you’re still with people, not alone, but also not a philosopher, not a researcher, not being completely honest with yourself. When the moment comes when you can no longer afford to say this, then congratulations—you’re a philosopher. And this is no cause for celebration if you realize what you’ve lost along with it.
Of course, everything I’ve written is, to some extent, logically self-refuting. After all, how can I assert something if I say that asserting something is a cognitive error? But I’ll leave this here and remain deliberately self-contradictory.
I wasn’t warned about any of this, but I would have appreciated it if had. So I just decided, arbitrarily, that you might find it useful.
If you’re interested in pursuing this line of thought, I’d suggest looking up two very simple things first: naive realism and cognitive biases—just on Wikipedia.
I also suggest trying my practical method, which I find quite useful when writing:
These are simple things, and perhaps you’re already familiar with them. We can return to your essay later in more detail.
I’ve been busy with important work lately, so I’ve only just been able to get back to your proposal for an experiment.
-
I’d appreciate it if you could explain to me what such an experiment would look like in practice, given that I perform dozens of different actions every day while interacting with people?
-
Besides, I think that if a person is supposed to deliberately behave selfishly in every situation on a “selfish day” and selflessly on an “altruistic day,” then this is no longer an observation of their natural behavior, but rather an artificial role-playing exercise. In that case, the result would not show how a person usually behaves or what usually guides them, but only how they feel when they deliberately play a prescribed role for 25 days.”
Earmark 50 days for the experiment. Select 25 days randomly using an RNG. These are your be selfless days. The other 25 are your be selfish days.
Develop a hedonic score scale: 0 to 5. Note down your score for each day.
After the experiment, compute your mean hedonic score for selfish days and selfless days:
Difference (D) = Mean hedonic score for selfless days - Mean hedonic score for selfish days.
H_0: D = 0
H_a: D > 0
\alpha = 0.05
Is D statistically significant. You can rerandomize your hedonic scores (randomly assign the scores to the 2 groups). Do this simulation 1000 times. Compute the difference between the mean hedonic scores for each of these sims. How many times do you get a difference \geq D. Say n times. Compute the p value, \frac{n}{1000}.
If p value < \alpha then the observed D is statistically significant i.e. we can reject H_0 (that acting selflessly makes on difference) and accept H_a (that acting selflessly makes you happier).
If p value \geq \alpha then D is not statistically significant ane we fail to reject H_0. We cannot accept H_a.
Yes, there’s something artificial about an experiment. For that I suggest that the subjects of the experiment don’t know what the experiment is about. You can collected the data and give it for analysis to someone who doesn’t know the aims/goals of the experiment. This is double-blind. Your knowledge about the experiment will introduce bias. This is a tough nut to crack, but a good experimental design should get you across that bump in the road.
We seem to have established this clearly. You are a christian and an anticommunist.
That fine,you are not alone and its a respectable world view but simply telling us that is not philosophy
Saying we are naturally individualistic is fine but then saying this outcome is one I like because it supports a free market economy and this outcome is one I don’t like because it conflicts with the bible. Its all just statement and restatement of your preferences.
Thanks, friend, for the detailed math. But:
- I wasn’t asking you how to calculate it, but how to actually conduct the experiment itself. Please take a look at point #1 of my last post;
- Which experiment participants are you talking about—the ones who don’t know what this is about? After all, there’s only one participant here—and that’s me. If by “participants” you also mean those who will be doing the calculations, then I believe that’s question #3.
- My main concern right now is question #1. Then comes question #2.
So only after that does it make sense to discuss statistical analysis. But I think we’ll get stuck on these first two questions.
1. Even though I was a communist and joined the party out of conviction, it seems I have now become an anti-communist. I can explain the reasons for both at some point later, if anyone is interested.
2. But I certainly haven’t become a Christian, although I do have my own take on belief in God.
3. I reread your comment on my post “The Philosophical Law of Self-Interest in Economics.” In it, you explained the process of capitalism’s transition to a system “with a human face,” confirming my own views on this process
, but you didn’t address the question of philosophy
4. “But then to say that I like this outcome because it supports a free-market economy, and I don’t like that outcome because it contradicts the Bible—that’s all just a statement of fact and a rephrasing of your preferences.”
Whether I like it or not, these are your assessments of my texts. But that’s not what I was pointing out; the main point is that both the first and the second are not “paraphrases of my preferences” but objective facts.
5. In your latest post, you seem to be writing that our discussions do not involve philosophy. Here I must object and explain. If you have read my series of posts on the Law of Self-Interest in *Ethics* and in *Social Philosophy*, you know perfectly well that I consider my so-called Law of Self-Interest to be philosophical, and I demonstrate the role of this philosophy in the economy—not merely illustrating the development of capitalism from its primitive to its civilized stage. And I show that it was precisely the personal interests of capitalists, workers, and consumers that contributed to the formation of capitalism in this way. Which, incidentally, confirms the philosophical law of dialectics regarding the struggle of opposites as the source of development.
So, if you’d like to continue the discussion about the “philosophical nature” of my arguments, you can refer to my previous posts.
6. And I’ll also give you a sneak peek (in confidence) that I intend to publish a post soon on how my law meets the criteria not only of philosophy but also of science.