On page 33, Hurka talks about two different worlds. One in which all the individuals are entirely self-concerned, and another where all individuals are benevolent. He argues that only individuals with base level sense of good would prefer the first world than to the second. However, it seems to me that we live in the first world. Democracy in America, or perhaps more generally capitalism, de Tocqueville claims is based upon this world of selfish individuals.
Because Americans are selfish, it allows are society to run more effectively, even a more moral world. Because selfishness does not limit itself to only evil actions, selfishness can cause benevolence. If it is in our best interest that others do not think poorly of us, otherwise it would harm our goal. And so, it is one’s best interest that one be benevolent.
Furthermore, the practicality of the second world happening seems to be slim. A world with not enough resources, where all individuals are benevolent doesn’t seem possible. Although people may want the second world, it is not possible. Also, the second world doesn’t seem that terrible.
It can also be said that we are conditioned to prefer the second world to the first one. The second world takes away one’s chances at greatness. We cannot achieve greatness because greatness requires enemies, and in a world with benevolence enemies do not happen. If we value greatness more than benevolence why wouldn’t we prefer the first world?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I’m going to respond to your post in three sections, since you have three major points. Your first point is that our world is the world that Hurka imagines where people are wholly self-centered and seek only pleasure for themselves. While this view is not implausible, it is an overly pessimistic way to analyze the behavior of people. Do you really believe someone only feels compassion so others will look upon him in a better light? That would be the only justification for compassion in such a world. For a more formal and less affective argument we can apply the self-sealing fallacy: there is no way to disprove that all of a man’s actions are wholly self-centered. This shows a weakness in the view itself that makes holding the view difficult.
The second point you make is more of a “so what?” point. Why is being selfish a bad thing if it leads to benevolence? The answer is because benevolence might appear to be a side effect of selfishness, but it is in no way an entailment. On the view that I can act entirely self-centeredly, the only thing stopping me from stealing or murdering is fear that I would be caught and punished. If I discover my skills are so great that I could never be discovered, and I got pleasure from stealing or killing, nothing would stop me because we lack any respect for others as people on this view.
The last point you make is sort of questioning the scenario as a whole. Here is a quick example where I’m almost sure you’d agree World 2 is the better choice: Imagine you have a boyfriend now that cares for you. You both love each other, you like his family, etc. You both will have a substantial debt for the foreseeable future, making life very difficult for you both. Imagine instead that some zillionaire asks for your hand in marriage, but makes it clear that he doesn’t really love you, he just wants your beauty and your loyalty in exchange for “the good life.” Which would you choose?
Post a Comment