Alan G Isaac wrote:
>The difference has been clear and unclear to many people.
>In my opinion, it was settled by Joseph Butler
>(Fifteen Sermons upon Human Nature. Charlottesville, VA:
>Ibis Publishing, 1987(1726).)
>
>In his refutation of psychological egoism, he noted that the
>distinction between my self-interested desires and my other
>desires does not disappear just because they are both *my*
>desires. You have not faced two related questions:
>what is the nature of this satisfaction (i.e.,
>self-interested or not), and why might the man get
>satisfaction from making such a gift?
Hurray for citing Butler, who is far more
important in the history of this controversy than
is generally recognized. But he gets to the real
issue. The "homo oeconomicus" is arrived at by
creating a false dichotomy: either altruism OR
self-interest. And since a pure altruism is easy
to knock down, that leaves only self-interest.
But this is not the case; there is no necessary
conflict between self-interest and concern for
others (although there can be many actual
conflicts). Indeed, a pure altruism is neither
possible nor desirable, but a pure self-interest
would simply be pathological. To give another
example, a man's "love-utility" is not increased
quantitatively by having a harem, but
qualitatively by learning to love one woman more
intensely. But this intensity is not of the sort
that can be subject to mathematics.
That consideration gives us the nature of the
satisfaction, it is qualitative rather than
quantitative. Here is where utilitarian
philosophies and economics go wrong, because they
confuse quantity and quality. Quantity is only a
means to an end, an end that is always
qualitative. A person seeks a raise (quantity)
only because it represents an improvement in the
quality of life; it is a means, not an end. When
pure quantities are sought for their own sake, it
becomes, as Aristotle noted, a example of
"unnatural exchange," an exchange that has no natural use or point.
John C. Medaille
|
