5 ms·

"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." [..] The fact of that matt

"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." [..] The fact of that matter is that we know this premise to be false. I disagree. If someone doesn't pursue their own interests then by logical necessity they are pursueing interests imposed on them. "Social interest" is merely a euphamism for State interests. Killing the Jews in gas chambers was a social interest. Of course, by disagreeing with that you would prove my point that "social responsibility" is anything but a completely subjective term that varies (greatly) by each individual, and only has power in the context of the State. As a practical matter, only a few crazies actually believe that people have no social obligations. But what does social obligation mean? If you didn't obligate yourself, then social obligation really means obligation by force, obligation to the State and whatever the State deems an obligation. Obligation to a small group's whim instead of obligation to your own actions, interests, and responsiblities.

rayiner 15y ago
> I disagree. If someone doesn't pursue their own interests then by logical necessity they are pursueing interests imposed on them. If you read the text surrounding the quoted language, it uses "own interest" in a narrow sense, not encompassing altruism. If you subscribe to the notion that there is a dichotomy between "own interest" (encompassing altruism) and "the state's interest" then yes your claim is logically valid, but also besides the point. The ethic underlying modern American business ethics conceives that profit maximization maximizes overall social welfare (i.e. it uses the narrower definition of "own interest" that Smith uses, not your broader definition). > Of course, by disagreeing with that you would prove my point that "social responsibility" is anything but a completely subjective term that varies (greatly) by each individual, and only has power in the context of the State. Guess what? We live in a state. And we live in a state where most people believe in welfare maximization: the greatest good for the greatest number. And many of those people, in the business context, believe that profit maximization leads to welfare maximization. To the extent that this assumption is incorrect, their behavior is inconsistent with their desired outcomes. > But what does social obligation mean? If you didn't obligate yourself, then social obligation really means obligation by force, obligation to the State and whatever the State deems an obligation. You obligate yourself by participating in civilized society. You obligate yourself by exchanging, for the protections of civilized society, the duties of living in a civilized society. You try to separate "the State" from "the people" but in reality "we the people" created "the State" to defend our property interests. "We the people" through "the State" keep big strong men from taking what you conceive of as "your property" and that obligates you to us. That obligation doesn't necessarily have to involve coercion. To the extent that you don't consider how your business decisions impact society at large, it might simply make you a "bad person." The problem is that we have an ethical system that relieves you of the duty to make that consideration. You can ruthlessly try to maximize shareholder value and still be a "good person." That ethic is predicated on the idea that profit maximization ultimately serves to maximize social welfare. What I'm arguing is that this assumption has been empirically invalidated (or at least drastically limited) and as such we should move towards an ethic that labels people who are socially inconsiderate as "bad people."
- dreamdu5t 15y ago
  > but in reality "we the people" created "the State" to defend our property interests. No, I did not. I didn't consent to any such agreement creating the State. > We the people" through "the State" keep big strong men from taking what you conceive of as "your property" and that obligates you to us. We the people? I did not consent to the constitution. Just like I can't bind you to contracts that you didn't consent to, I am not part of "we the people" because I never consented to be represented. Funny that it's called a "social contract" when it doesn't conform to contract law! > You obligate yourself by participating in civilized society. If that's the case, why can't I levy taxes and impose rules on people without their consent, simply because I sold something to them?
  - clavalle 15y ago
    "No, I did not. I didn't consent to any such agreement creating the State." You do every moment you live in civilized society. What is the alternative? Ask people when they reach the age of majority to sign an agreement to follow the laws of the land? What if they refuse?
    - dreamdu5t 15y ago
      No, "being here" is not consent. Suppose I come to your home with a bunch of armed friends, and tell you "You are free to leave, but if you stay you consent to following my rules." It would be absurd to consider that consent. The alternative is a society based on voluntary exchange, by recognizing the State as an immoral initiation of force.
      - clavalle 15y ago
        The fact is that people are born into society. People who lived before us created a system where rights are protected and, when you reach the age of majority, you have the option of participating in governance either by voting, or running for office or other political action (this is all assuming you live in a Western style democratic republic). I am not sure where you get the idea that you are being violently coerced into living in civilized society and thereby following the pre-existing laws, simply because you never signed a contract or, equivalently, expressly consenting that you would. Contracts are a legal convenience. A convenience whos very enforcement is dictated by the laws that you rail against for not having explicitly agreed to them. A bit of a chicken and egg problem, wouldn't you agree? Your argument is absurd. "I didn't agree to have red lights mean 'stop'!", "I didn't agree that murder should be punished!", "I didn't agree that I couldn't build a hog farm on my suburban front lawn!". I mean, come on. What is your alternative to expecting people to live by certain rules that their ancestors through their previous political action put in place? Start from scratch with each new person? How would we tell who agreed to what? There are laws that I don't wholeheartedly agree with either but, for the most part, they seem pretty reasonable. Your 'system' or lack thereof, wouldn't fly in a household much less a nation.
wazoox 15y ago
You've got to the Godwin point at impressive speed, kudos. > If someone doesn't pursue their own interests then by logical necessity they are pursueing interests imposed on them. You fall for the fallacy that you actually could be free of social influence anyway. This isn't the case; see you've been Ayn-Randed to the bones, for instance. That makes you believe mad things that work against your own interest in the long term. See? > But what does social obligation mean? You're born to some family, speaking some language, walking some road, sheltering under some roof someone built, lighten by some power that was brought to you, etc. Are you pretending you don't need anybody else?
- dreamdu5t 15y ago
  > You fall for the fallacy that you actually could be free of social influence anyway. No, I never implied that I was free from the forceful influence of the State. Social obligation in the context of the post I was responding to is (I thought) referring to regulation and taxes, the social contract. > You're born to some family, speaking some language, walking some road, sheltering under some roof someone built, lighten by some power that was brought to you, etc. Are you pretending you don't need anybody else? I'm not pretending that I don't need anybody else. I just don't find moral legitimacy in being compelled to do things by force without my consent. Private roads aren't allowed to exist, I pay for my own shelter presumably built by people who were already paid to build it, I pay for my power by the company that provides it, and language I acquired by picking it up from others at who provided it freely.
  - pyre 15y ago
    I just don't find moral legitimacy in being compelled to do things by force without my consent. So, you're arguing in favor of anarchy?
  - wazoox 15y ago
    > I just don't find moral legitimacy in being compelled to do things by force without my consent. By force? Were you subject to violence? You're free to head into the wilderness, live from your hunting and start your own civilisation on your own, perfectly free; others did. However it proves more cumbersome and less pleasant than simply living in our oppressive society. I'm perfectly happy with paying taxes, and having roads, policemen, garbage collectors and street lights. What's the opposite stance? > Private roads aren't allowed to exist How so? The path going across my terrain is as private as possible. However private roads aren't really practical. It's commonly known that infrastructure work in general is less efficient when not a monopoly, and so far the only working monopoly is the state (monopoly of violence most saliently).

rayiner 15y ago

> I disagree. If someone doesn't pursue their own interests then by logical necessity they are pursueing interests imposed on them. If you read the text surrounding the quoted language, it uses "own interest" in a narrow sense, not encompassing altruism. If you subscribe to the notion that there is a dichotomy between "own interest" (encompassing altruism) and "the state's interest" then yes your claim is logically valid, but also besides the point. The ethic underlying modern American business ethics conceives that profit maximization maximizes overall social welfare (i.e. it uses the narrower definition of "own interest" that Smith uses, not your broader definition). > Of course, by disagreeing with that you would prove my point that "social responsibility" is anything but a completely subjective term that varies (greatly) by each individual, and only has power in the context of the State. Guess what? We live in a state. And we live in a state where most people believe in welfare maximization: the greatest good for the greatest number. And many of those people, in the business context, believe that profit maximization leads to welfare maximization. To the extent that this assumption is incorrect, their behavior is inconsistent with their desired outcomes. > But what does social obligation mean? If you didn't obligate yourself, then social obligation really means obligation by force, obligation to the State and whatever the State deems an obligation. You obligate yourself by participating in civilized society. You obligate yourself by exchanging, for the protections of civilized society, the duties of living in a civilized society. You try to separate "the State" from "the people" but in reality "we the people" created "the State" to defend our property interests. "We the people" through "the State" keep big strong men from taking what you conceive of as "your property" and that obligates you to us. That obligation doesn't necessarily have to involve coercion. To the extent that you don't consider how your business decisions impact society at large, it might simply make you a "bad person." The problem is that we have an ethical system that relieves you of the duty to make that consideration. You can ruthlessly try to maximize shareholder value and still be a "good person." That ethic is predicated on the idea that profit maximization ultimately serves to maximize social welfare. What I'm arguing is that this assumption has been empirically invalidated (or at least drastically limited) and as such we should move towards an ethic that labels people who are socially inconsiderate as "bad people."

dreamdu5t 15y ago
> but in reality "we the people" created "the State" to defend our property interests. No, I did not. I didn't consent to any such agreement creating the State. > We the people" through "the State" keep big strong men from taking what you conceive of as "your property" and that obligates you to us. We the people? I did not consent to the constitution. Just like I can't bind you to contracts that you didn't consent to, I am not part of "we the people" because I never consented to be represented. Funny that it's called a "social contract" when it doesn't conform to contract law! > You obligate yourself by participating in civilized society. If that's the case, why can't I levy taxes and impose rules on people without their consent, simply because I sold something to them?
- clavalle 15y ago
  "No, I did not. I didn't consent to any such agreement creating the State." You do every moment you live in civilized society. What is the alternative? Ask people when they reach the age of majority to sign an agreement to follow the laws of the land? What if they refuse?
  - dreamdu5t 15y ago
    No, "being here" is not consent. Suppose I come to your home with a bunch of armed friends, and tell you "You are free to leave, but if you stay you consent to following my rules." It would be absurd to consider that consent. The alternative is a society based on voluntary exchange, by recognizing the State as an immoral initiation of force.
    - clavalle 15y ago
      The fact is that people are born into society. People who lived before us created a system where rights are protected and, when you reach the age of majority, you have the option of participating in governance either by voting, or running for office or other political action (this is all assuming you live in a Western style democratic republic). I am not sure where you get the idea that you are being violently coerced into living in civilized society and thereby following the pre-existing laws, simply because you never signed a contract or, equivalently, expressly consenting that you would. Contracts are a legal convenience. A convenience whos very enforcement is dictated by the laws that you rail against for not having explicitly agreed to them. A bit of a chicken and egg problem, wouldn't you agree? Your argument is absurd. "I didn't agree to have red lights mean 'stop'!", "I didn't agree that murder should be punished!", "I didn't agree that I couldn't build a hog farm on my suburban front lawn!". I mean, come on. What is your alternative to expecting people to live by certain rules that their ancestors through their previous political action put in place? Start from scratch with each new person? How would we tell who agreed to what? There are laws that I don't wholeheartedly agree with either but, for the most part, they seem pretty reasonable. Your 'system' or lack thereof, wouldn't fly in a household much less a nation.

wazoox 15y ago

You've got to the Godwin point at impressive speed, kudos. > If someone doesn't pursue their own interests then by logical necessity they are pursueing interests imposed on them. You fall for the fallacy that you actually could be free of social influence anyway. This isn't the case; see you've been Ayn-Randed to the bones, for instance. That makes you believe mad things that work against your own interest in the long term. See? > But what does social obligation mean? You're born to some family, speaking some language, walking some road, sheltering under some roof someone built, lighten by some power that was brought to you, etc. Are you pretending you don't need anybody else?

dreamdu5t 15y ago
> You fall for the fallacy that you actually could be free of social influence anyway. No, I never implied that I was free from the forceful influence of the State. Social obligation in the context of the post I was responding to is (I thought) referring to regulation and taxes, the social contract. > You're born to some family, speaking some language, walking some road, sheltering under some roof someone built, lighten by some power that was brought to you, etc. Are you pretending you don't need anybody else? I'm not pretending that I don't need anybody else. I just don't find moral legitimacy in being compelled to do things by force without my consent. Private roads aren't allowed to exist, I pay for my own shelter presumably built by people who were already paid to build it, I pay for my power by the company that provides it, and language I acquired by picking it up from others at who provided it freely.
- pyre 15y ago
  I just don't find moral legitimacy in being compelled to do things by force without my consent. So, you're arguing in favor of anarchy?
- wazoox 15y ago
  > I just don't find moral legitimacy in being compelled to do things by force without my consent. By force? Were you subject to violence? You're free to head into the wilderness, live from your hunting and start your own civilisation on your own, perfectly free; others did. However it proves more cumbersome and less pleasant than simply living in our oppressive society. I'm perfectly happy with paying taxes, and having roads, policemen, garbage collectors and street lights. What's the opposite stance? > Private roads aren't allowed to exist How so? The path going across my terrain is as private as possible. However private roads aren't really practical. It's commonly known that infrastructure work in general is less efficient when not a monopoly, and so far the only working monopoly is the state (monopoly of violence most saliently).