One of the fascinating aspects of our modern world is the belief that "private vices will produce public virtues."
This belief, expressed by Dutch philosopher Bernard Mandiville in 1705, in his book The Fable of the Bees: or Private Vices, Public Benefits, described, in short, “how both the merchant and the con man were driven by selfish instincts.” For Mandeville, it was vice, not virtue, that kept the wheels of commerce turning. Mandeville even captured those sentiments in a poem
This belief, expressed by Dutch philosopher Bernard Mandiville in 1705, in his book The Fable of the Bees: or Private Vices, Public Benefits, described, in short, “how both the merchant and the con man were driven by selfish instincts.” For Mandeville, it was vice, not virtue, that kept the wheels of commerce turning. Mandeville even captured those sentiments in a poem
Thus Vice nurs'd Ingenuity,
Which join'd with Time and Industry,
Had carry'd Life's Conveniences,
It's real Pleasures, Comforts, Ease,
To such a Height, the very Poor
Liv'd better than the Rich before,
And nothing could be added more.
Which join'd with Time and Industry,
Had carry'd Life's Conveniences,
It's real Pleasures, Comforts, Ease,
To such a Height, the very Poor
Liv'd better than the Rich before,
And nothing could be added more.
Upon this maxim has been built the modern global economy, as well as our modern technological financial systems. But such an idea is rife with implications that reverberate across the world in numerous ways, most if not all of which are often completely overlooked.
Take for example that this contradictory idea seems paradoxical on its face. That it is paradoxical does not invalidate the validity of such a maxim, but it does obfuscate the clear distinctions we like to rely on, which are nowhere preached to be so clearly obvious as by religion, of ideas of "good" and "bad."
How, in other words, can one be expected to clearly determine the difference between "good" and "bad," if engaging in "bad behavior" as an individual can produce "good" results on the whole? In such a paradigm, the more one is willing to sacrifice their own soul for the public good can color everyone a Christ figure, as each person sacrifices themselves to their vices for the salvation of the public economy overall.
Likewise, most people fail to notice the difference between the financial system and the economy. While it is true that these two aspects are typically considered two sides of the same coin, they operate in very different ways. The financial system runs on a zero-sum gain, with each person's gains coming necessarily from another person's losses, a "win-lose" paradigm, while the "economy" of goods and services works on a "win-win" paradigm, with each person "gaining" through the trading of their goods and services.
The idea of the "win-win" paradigm is simple. If I have $5 dollars but need some gas, while a person with plenty of gas needs $5 dollars to buy groceries, then exchanging the $5 for gas is actually considered by classical economics to have increased the wealth of both through this exchange. But in a "win-loose" paradigm, the person who gains my $5 dollars is enriched, but I have nothing to show for it.
The trouble with our increasing reliance on financial systems to make money, among so many other things, is that it relies on the illusion that it is operating under a "win-win" paradigm, which is one most people who support capitalism in general correctly see as a virtue, even though it actually operates under a "win-lose"paradigm, which is one of the biggest contributors to the growing inequality of wealth in America today, and the world in general.
But there is another factor that is overlooked as well. How does this paradoxical idea that "private vices can produce public virtues" operate within religion? Well, interestingly enough, it can produce a chiral opposite.
In chemistry, a "chiral" opposite is understood to be the difference between a person's left and and right hands. The two hands are identical (usually and for the most part) but are opposite. So to, the "private vice = public virtue" idea relied upon as the "invisible hand" in our economy, has a chiral opposite in religion, where private virtue can produce public vice, although not always (obviously).
We see this when a society thinks a particular way of thinking about the world is so virtuous, that it is a reflection of "God's will," and to ensure such a perspective becomes the greatest virtue of all, any vice needed to ensure its survival can miraculously be transformed into a virtue, like water into wine. In short, using vice to defend virtue is how Inquisitions and Crusaders justify any means necessary for achieving the ends that God desires.
Comments
Post a Comment