Why I Don’t Like “Enlightened Self-Interest”
November 26, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 1 Comment
This is a follow-up to my last article, wherein I write that I prefer the term “submission” over the term “enlightened self-interest.”
My aversion to the term “enlightened self-interest” comes from its common usage in economic and narrowly practical terms. In other words, it doesn’t go far and deep enough for what I wish to convey with “submission.”
And, once again, understand that this is written from my understanding of Christian epistemology and doctrine. You may take issue with my interpretation/understanding, but if you reject Christian epistemology, then we have no basis for debate.
Enlightened self-interest largely has its roots in Adam Smith’s concept of “the invisible hand,” as found in Wealth of Nations, wherein he writes:
“By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”
Ayn Rand’s term for this is “rational selfishness.” In The Virtue of Selfishness Rand writes:
“The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness — which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man — which means: the values required for human survival — not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the ‘aspirations,’ the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
“The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash — that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.”
In either case, we find self-interest to be grounded in the material world, confined to a mental, or rational, sphere, and narrowly defined in terms of economic exchange.
Adding the spiritual element, according to my understanding, changes, or at least broadens, the whole picture. When animated by a spiritual connection with a Supreme Being, people do things that may appear to be irrational — at least to those who place the mental realm as the highest realm of existence. Furthermore, they may do things that may appear to have no or limited economic value, in the strictest of terms.
For example, Christ’s willingness to take upon Himself our sins and weaknesses is ridiculous and irrational to the atheist/strict Objectivist. (Per Rand’s statement, “In spiritual issues, a trader is a man who does not seek to be loved for his weaknesses or flaws, only for his virtues, and who does not grant his love to the weaknesses or the flaws of others, only to their virtues.”)
His sacrifice, borne of submission to His Father, was not calculated to bring him money, or to prosper in narrow economic terms.
Mother Teresa didn’t run her orphanages for the purpose of exchanging her labor for money for herself. She didn’t start out thinking of “promoting an end which was no part of [her] intention.” She actually intended to achieve altruistic ends. The good she did in the world wasn’t a mere by-product of pursuing her own interest solely — it was the target, the conscious goal.
Washington didn’t suffer through Valley Forge because of rational, mental, self-interested, economic-based calculations. Left to himself, Washington would have been a quiet farmer his entire life. But because he had submitted to God, not only did he sacrifice, but his sacrifices actually got him closer to his true self-interest than not making them could have. (Of course, this is an assumption based on Christian epistemology and an eternal perspective.)
Submission: The Highest Form of Applied Self-Interest
Enlightened self-interest is not, in my estimation, the highest form of applied self-interest. While it definitely is much more preferable to selfishness, or “irrational selfishness,” it doesn’t go far enough to describe my understanding of Christian doctrine. It’s predicated upon mental calculations intended to bring us the best returns. And, as I wrote previously, since we can’t have full knowledge of what is in our best interest at any given time, we must rely upon an external source — God — to guide our calculations.
Submission to God seems to me a much better term for the highest form of self-interest. God doesn’t ask us to be irrational brutes; He merely asks us to have faith in Him. We’re not to shut off our mental calculations; we’re simply to trust that His recommendations (revelation) — no matter how difficult or “irrational” they may seem at the moment — supersede our calculations and will lead to our best interest.
He may ask us to choose a lower-paying job over a higher-paying one for reasons that we don’t understand. He may ask us to do things we don’t like (e.g. Washington). He may tear our heartstrings — as He did with Abraham — in order to expand our compassion and understanding. His revelations and guidance may lead to our suffering and death (e.g. Joan of Arc, Christ’s original apostles).
Without a belief in and relationship with God, we may never perform the sacrifices that would have led us, in actuality, to our highest self-interest. Even with a relationship with God, our self-interest can still be limited if our actions are based upon what we see in any given moment. If we can’t see how an action will benefit us immediately, we’ll choose a different (lower) path.
To conclude, I don’t prefer the term “enlightened self-interest” because it’s become, through common usage, limited, narrow, and defined strictly in terms of economic exchange. Submission is my preferred term to describe the highest form of self-interest.
It’s expansive enough to include the concept of “losing our life to save our life.” It implicitly presupposes an omniscient Being to whom we must submit, a Being who knows far better what is in our self-interest than we ever can. It doesn’t discourage nor negate rational thought; it expands and deepens it. It transcends the physical and mental realms and opens the door into the spiritual realm.
And by the way, I don’t even pretend to be a good example of what I’m describing. I echo Seneca who said, “I persist in praising not the life that I lead, but that which I ought to lead. I follow it at a mighty distance, crawling.”
Email This Post
People Who Disagree With You Aren’t Stupid
November 3, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 2 Comments
There’s nothing like a heated election to bring out passion — and disrespect — in people.
I was recently engaged in a conversation about Barack Obama where the following comments were made:
“You are wasting your breath. There are too many idiots out there who have no rational though [sic] when it comes to this thing we call voting. How else could a guy with absolutely no credentials (other than being black) get this close to being president. People are dumb. Then you have fools who thing [sic] that Bush screwed up enough that we need to vote Democrats in to get change going. Little did all the idiots know, but they were electing the american version of Yassir Arafat. I would like to congratulate the American people for being freaking morons of the highest order.”
And today I edited a comment on this site from a member who labeled those who disagree with him as “slow learners.”
Interesting. The implicit assumption that underlies such comments is that everyone who disagrees with the speaker is an idiot, dumb, a fool, a moron, and a slow learner.
There are two problems with this kind of approach: 1) there’s truth in every perspective, and 2) it negates our responsibility to persuade.
Truth In Every Perspective
As uneducated as I am, I do try to read frequently. I have yet to read anything or explore the perspective of any individual without finding something valuable and true.
I find truth in the writings of Karl Marx — he described and accurately diagnosed a severe problem, that of aristocratic exploitation by using the force of government to favor those with capital over those with little or none.
I find truth in Hegel — his dialectic approach has added to my own thought processes immensely (as witnessed by this article).
I find truth in Qu’ran, the Torah, the Old and New Testaments, the Tao Te Ching, and the Bhagavad Gita.
I find truth in the perspectives of John Keynes, John Stuart Mill, Gunnar Myral, John Galbraith, and Herbert Marcuse.
To clarify, I also find a lot of falsehoods in each of these — as I do in the writings of “conservatives” and in the perspectives of the Founding Fathers. The point is that people who disagree with you aren’t stupid — they simply have a different perspective based on their nature and nurture, their background and their education. And there’s much value to be gained from the people with whom you disagree the most.
Labeling those who disagree with you as “stupid” is a great way to lose out on a valuable perspective that could help you to hone your own views and become more effective in the battle for freedom.
The Responsibility of Persuasion
Let’s assume for a moment that those who call others “dumb” are right. Being right doesn’t give you license to denigrate; it gives you the responsibility to persuade with love and patience. Those who feel that they are the most “right” have the most responsibility to help others to see their perspective.
If it’s true that you’re right, then why would you push people away by calling them idiots and morons? If it’s true that you’re right, then why aren’t you serving and uplifting, rather than attacking, those with whom you disagree? If it’s true that you’re right, shouldn’t you be doing everything in your power to persuade others to your side/perspective/cause? And how does name-calling and condescension help that effort in the slightest? When was the last time you won anyone to your side by putting them down?
Conclusion
Those who are the most passionate should be the most loving, kind, and patient. Those who feel the strongest about their positions should serve those with a different position the most. “Liberals” aren’t any more or less stupid than “conservatives.” Republicans in general are no more or less educated or patriotic than Democrats. There’s truth to be learned and value to be gained from socialists and libertarians alike.
When you find yourself in a heated discussion, step back and strive to find the good, the true, and the valuable from the person you disagree with. The world will be a better place, peace will trump conflict, and you’ll find that you attract and persuade far more effectively.
None of us have a monopoly on truth. But if we did, being right is a call to serve, not a license to vilify.
(By the way, if you think I’m self-righteous for posting this, be assured that I’m also talking to myself. Those who know me well know that I have a history of conflict and condescension. How do you think I’ve learned that it doesn’t work?)
Recommended Reading:
Are You Asking the Right Questions?
Email This Post
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
A Statesman’s Solution To Terrorism
October 2, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · Leave a Comment
While the neo-conservative “solution” of war-imposed “democracy” continues to fail and bankrupt America, former Congressman and UN Ambassador Mark Siljander has been quietly, yet steadily, building bridges of love, tolerance, peace, and understanding in the Middle East.
His new book, A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman’s Quest to Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide, offers hope and genuine reconciliation between cultures and religions and answers to centuries-old conflicts.
An experienced statesman at home and abroad, Mr. Siljander serves on the Board of George Wythe University. In this revelatory book he recounts his amazing spiritual odyssey from anti-Muslim Christian conservative to pioneer in discovering uncharted, ground-breaking common roots between Islam and Christianity, while trailblazing a unique diplomatic path for bringing the two communities together.
This is not just another book; there are many interesting books filling our shelves. Nor is it an academic thesis or political agenda. This story inspires hope in our increasingly desperate world, uncovering compelling common ground for followers of these two super-power religions.
“No Christian or Muslim will be unaffected after reading this book. Siljander’s paradigm-shifting discoveries could radically shift the contemporary religious landscape and help heal the rift between Islam and the West.” -Christianbook.com
At our root are basic misunderstandings of concepts like “religion” and “conversion.” Siljander breaks down and re-assembles these concepts through study of the ancient Semitic languages of both religions, making paradigm-shifting discoveries that unite rather than divide us. His findings are drawn from twenty-seven years of study and practice in a real life journey. Wherever he and his praying partners travel among Muslim nations, the outcome of their quiet diplomacy is respect, trust, love of friends and enemies, and significant real-world breakthroughs in crisis situations of which few are aware.
His book offers explosive models based on ancient truths, proven to powerfully affect people, conflicts, countries, and potentially change cultures. This is the kind of “change” future presidents must strive for. This seemingly implausible path to peace dismantles the engine of terror without firing a single shot.
Click here to learn more and to purchase your copies now. Readers are encouraged to purchase copies on October 7th, which is the official release date of the book.
“Rumors indicate that the Siljander book … has angered … the influential ‘war lobby’ depending on decades of religious conflict.” -Veterans Today
About the Author
Mr. Siljander represented Michigan for fifteen years, which includes three terms as a Member of the United States Congress, where he served on the International Relations Middle East Subcommittee and was Ranking Member of the Africa Subcommittee. He was the primary sponsor of the African Famine Relief Act. Mark was later appointed by President Reagan as a US Ambassador (Alt. Delegate) to the United Nations in New York, where he served as a member of the Middle East and Africa Strategy Group of permanent representatives.
Ambassador Siljander is a student of several languages, including Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew, and has spent over ten years studying the three Holy Books of the Abrahamic faiths. With over 26 years serving in the power circles of Washington and semi-official travel to nearly 130 countries, he has generated unique opportunities for frequent access to world leaders. These experiences have led him to develop a unique paradigm for the peaceful resolution of conflict that has been successfully applied in several challenging areas of the globe.
Mark Siljander reinforces his conflict resolution efforts through regular travel overseas with Congressional and high-level delegations.
Purchase your copy now to get on the cutting edge of the Middle East conflict and find real solutions to terrorism.
Email This Post
Do You Hate Oppression, Or Love Liberty?
September 10, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 4 Comments
And why does it matter? Is there a difference between the two?
Truth and freedom are synonymous with happiness, for as man aligns his thoughts, speech, and actions with eternal, immutable truth, he discovers personal freedom and is therefore happy; one cannot be free and unhappy simultaneously. Understanding this, we find that mere political freedom is simply one level of freedom on an infinite scale, and is not the ultimate goal of the pursuit of happiness — the former is merely a framework to facilitate the latter.
Many of us make the mistake of pursuing political freedom before internalizing personal integrity. In the pursuit of happiness, the question one must answer is, “Do I love freedom, or do I hate oppression?” On the surface level, these questions appear to be a redundancy, yet what naturally flows from the answers to each are worlds apart in their long-term consequences.
The Law — Tool of Acquisition, Redistribution, or Justice?
September 1, 2008 by Mike Wilson · 1 Comment
How To Keep The Law In Its Rightful Place
The only legitimate purpose of legislation is to establish some level of justice in society. However, it doesn’t take long for that proposed intent to be abused. Human beings have a tendency to self-interest and legislators are no different.
The French physiocrat Frederic Bastiat, popularized the phrase “legal plunder” in his essay The Law. Legal plunder means to use legislation to accomplish exchanges of money, capital, labor, resources, etc. that one could not do without the law. This legalization does the following: “And, as law cannot exist without the sanction and the support of a preponderating force, it must finally place this force in the hands of those who legislate.”
Historically, how has this been manifested? How do we understand it today? What can we do about this problem in order to increase our liberty and prosperity?
-
Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to The Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and receive two free gifts. Your personal information will never be shared.
Subscribe To The Cause Of LibertyPolls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...