Ramifications of the moral paradigm shift
From "Jakob Friedrich Fries (1773-1843)" by Kelley L. Ross:
Right on! Here one can see the evidence of the paradigm shift caused by capitalism away from the hierarchical ethic mentioned elsewhere.
My thoughts since writing that entry have been that:
In particular, our culture is in a seeming conflict between two paradigms: equality and natural rights. Equality can be seen in theorists such as Karl Marx and Peter Singer, natural rights in theorists such as John Locke and Robert Nozick. What is in the interests of equality does not seem necessarily in the interests of natural rights. If people are allowed to act freely with each other, for example, an unequal distribution of wealth seems inevitable. In order to make people equal, some kind of coercion, hence violation of natural rights, seems inevitable.
I think that looking deeper into the matter, however, there is no conflict in practice between natural rights and equality. As John Rawls recognised, an equal distribution of wealth does not result in the highest possible minimum standard of living. This standard is actually maximised in certain kinds of unequal distribution. These kinds of unequal distribution certainly seem to be achieved under free enterprise capitalism. As a matter of documented fact, the societies with the highest minimum standards of living are also economically the freest. In other words, one can use a Rawlsian theory to obtain a Nozickian result. Of course, such a result is probably not at all in the spirit of Rawlsianism, but that such a result can be obtained was seen as early as Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.
Given the fact that one is coextensive with the other, what can one say of the justification of free enterprise capitalism? Rand also argued that capitalism was in the best interests of the least well-off. But she went on to say that that was not the reason for promoting laissez-faire capitalism. The reason is that it is in the enlightened self-interest of each person individually, and the fact that other people benefited was simply incidental. It is easy for a left-winger to see this kind of approach as a rationalisation of the rich and powerful to protect their power and privilege. In general, in fact, we are wary of self-interest as a motive towards the general happiness. It is not difficult, after all, to imagine self-interest working against the general welfare, such as exploitation of the poor by the rich. It can seem like a leap of faith to imagine that enlightened self-interest, through capitalism, leads to general prosperity.
An analogy with Aristotle here seems fruitful. Aristotle said that because (virtuous) life and pleasure are inextricably intertwined, it did not matter practically whether we chose life for the sake of pleasure or pleasure for the sake of life. Nevertheless, in principle, pleasure is incomplete in itself. It is right that we choose pleasure, but for the sake of the good life to which it leads1. Similarly, it seems to me that if self and others are so inextricably intertwined in a free society, then whether we choose self for the sake of others or other for the sake of self matters not either in practice. But in principle, the self is by nature incomplete--no man is an island--and we should choose self for the sake of others.
A discussion like this can be enlightened by observed problems with capitalism. That is currently beyond my level of expertise.
1Nichomachean Ethics, Book 10, Chapter 8.
The anti-Semitism of Right and Left comes down to the same hatred: the hatred of capitalism. To the political Right, capitalism represents, like the Jews themselves, a threat to the customs and hierarchy of traditional Christian (or Moslem, etc.) society. Commercial culture frees individuals from ancient restraints, producing "vulgar" popular enjoyments and non-conforming individual behavior. To the political Left, capitalism represents a threat to the ideological social engineering, Utopianism, and Mandarinism that really is the content of a leftist political program. A commercial culture that frees individuals does not ensure that they will conform to ideologically sound ("politically correct"), edifying activities.
Right on! Here one can see the evidence of the paradigm shift caused by capitalism away from the hierarchical ethic mentioned elsewhere.
My thoughts since writing that entry have been that:
- We are still feeling the ramifications of this paradigm shift today.
- We have still not replaced the old hierarchal ethic with a consistent non-hierarchical ethic.
In particular, our culture is in a seeming conflict between two paradigms: equality and natural rights. Equality can be seen in theorists such as Karl Marx and Peter Singer, natural rights in theorists such as John Locke and Robert Nozick. What is in the interests of equality does not seem necessarily in the interests of natural rights. If people are allowed to act freely with each other, for example, an unequal distribution of wealth seems inevitable. In order to make people equal, some kind of coercion, hence violation of natural rights, seems inevitable.
I think that looking deeper into the matter, however, there is no conflict in practice between natural rights and equality. As John Rawls recognised, an equal distribution of wealth does not result in the highest possible minimum standard of living. This standard is actually maximised in certain kinds of unequal distribution. These kinds of unequal distribution certainly seem to be achieved under free enterprise capitalism. As a matter of documented fact, the societies with the highest minimum standards of living are also economically the freest. In other words, one can use a Rawlsian theory to obtain a Nozickian result. Of course, such a result is probably not at all in the spirit of Rawlsianism, but that such a result can be obtained was seen as early as Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.
Given the fact that one is coextensive with the other, what can one say of the justification of free enterprise capitalism? Rand also argued that capitalism was in the best interests of the least well-off. But she went on to say that that was not the reason for promoting laissez-faire capitalism. The reason is that it is in the enlightened self-interest of each person individually, and the fact that other people benefited was simply incidental. It is easy for a left-winger to see this kind of approach as a rationalisation of the rich and powerful to protect their power and privilege. In general, in fact, we are wary of self-interest as a motive towards the general happiness. It is not difficult, after all, to imagine self-interest working against the general welfare, such as exploitation of the poor by the rich. It can seem like a leap of faith to imagine that enlightened self-interest, through capitalism, leads to general prosperity.
An analogy with Aristotle here seems fruitful. Aristotle said that because (virtuous) life and pleasure are inextricably intertwined, it did not matter practically whether we chose life for the sake of pleasure or pleasure for the sake of life. Nevertheless, in principle, pleasure is incomplete in itself. It is right that we choose pleasure, but for the sake of the good life to which it leads1. Similarly, it seems to me that if self and others are so inextricably intertwined in a free society, then whether we choose self for the sake of others or other for the sake of self matters not either in practice. But in principle, the self is by nature incomplete--no man is an island--and we should choose self for the sake of others.
A discussion like this can be enlightened by observed problems with capitalism. That is currently beyond my level of expertise.
1Nichomachean Ethics, Book 10, Chapter 8.
Comments