Mandeville

 

I do consider Bernard Mandeville to be a psychological egoist and likely he is a normative egoist too.

 

I printed a two-page, fascinating, compact, rich article off of the Internet about Mandeville’s egoist ethics, so I intend to lay it out and respond to it.  It is from p.l.e, philosophy.lauder.edu, and all the ideas therein expressed are solely theirs not mine, and this article is an excerpt from their Philosophy 302: Ethics Bernard Mandeville, ‘Human Beings Are Always Selfish”

 

 My response: Human beings are nearly always bad or selfless (This selflessness is unenlightened selfishness, universal practiced and defended as proper by its adherents and utilizers group-living their nasty, short, violent, sordid lives in the pack.). Humans must become virtuous by practicing positive selfishness, or enlightened self-interest (doing what is good for each individual and yet cumulatively is to be benefit of the entire community).

 

 

Here is their article, lauder after this: “Abstract: Mandeville argues that the private vices of individuals being selfish and seeking self-interest pays off for social welfare and social progress.”

 

My response: This characterization of Mandeville as a psychological egoist is accurate and it seems to imply that people should be selfish due to the pay-off to the social welfare, and that is a stance I can accept. My only qualification would be that I would characterize their selfishness as desirable and virtuous, and their lip service to socially and religiously vaunted virtue and altruism as pernicious to human welfare.

 

Lauder: “ . . . 1. Characterize Mandeville’s description of human nature.

 

Mandeville holds the doctrines of psychological and ethical hedonism and psychological and ethical egoism.

 

a.     Psychological Hedonism: the doctrine that each individual seeks his own pleasure.

b.     Ethical Hedonism: the belief that each individual ought to seek his own pleasure.

c.     Psychological Egoism: the doctrine that each individual seeks his own interest—for Mandeville, each person is selfish.

d.     Ethical Egoism: the doctrine that each individual ought to seek his own interest—for Mandeville, each person ought to be selfish.

 

Animals seek their own pleasure and do not think about the consequences to others. Those species that live together have the fewest appetites to gratify. Man is extraordinarily selfish, cunning, and stubborn, but capable of being socialized if he believes he can profit by it.”

 

My response: Mandeville likely holds these four doctrines. Let me compare and contrast his take on all four doctrines with my own brand of Mavellonialist egoism, laid out as the four doctrines. What follows is a Mavellonialist application of these four doctrines as I conceive of them.

 

Psychological Hedonism: the average shallow, callow, natural, uncivilized and superficial individual does seek pleasure more than pain regarding base, immediate appetites, but, his metaphysical and ethical stance, on deeper, spiritual and broader issues, is that of pursuing Psychological Pain and Suffering: he does not like himself and believes that he deserves to suffer, so he acts in self-destructive ways, making that goal achieved. He is a psychological anti-hedonist, pursuing Psychological Pain and Suffering.

He has to learn to enjoy simple pleasures and minimize simple pains while seeking to lead a holy and righteous life, that makes his life pleasurable more than painful, but not in a sordid way.

 

Ethical Hedonism: he ought to seek his own pleasure if it is not destructive, dishonest, hateful, predatory, exploitative or self-degrading. He might enjoy listening to classical music and that pleasure hurts none anywhere.

 

In short there is good pleasure (morally worthy) and bad pleasure (morally unworthy), and there is good pain (morally worthy and helps us grow) and bad pain (senseless cruelty that we spread in the world, even abusing ourselves to no good end). Ethical hedonism is the individual’s aim to enjoy and spread good pleasure, and to learn what he can while enduring good pain.

 

Psychological Egoism: I have long suggested that people are born depraved, and that means they are primarily altruistic and selfless, so hating themselves, that in their anger, despair and self-contempt, they spread bad all around, tearing up society, others and themselves.Therefore people are primarily Psychological Atruists, and a little bit Psychological Egoist.

 

We unfortunate, hapless, helpless, cursed and pathetic humans are Psychological Altruists. 

In light of this powerful, natural depravity that afflicts us, the moral goal is to train each child to grow into being a noble adult, one that develops his weak, recessive, latent tendency to love himself and by loving himself, loving others and God, and thus being able to be kind to all, including himself. The individual learns to use his reason and free agency to live as a psychological and ethical egoist, his virtuous adult nature now being one of loving, optimism and good will.

 

Ethical Egoism: I agree that the individual mostly should pursue his own interest, but the axiom of ethical moderation here introduces itself to remind the reader that latent ethical altruism penchant, in each agent, should be heeded as a minority moral imperative, that the individual must also see to the common good if it does not significantly interfere with the individual’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Humans are animals that seek base pleasures and do not think about the destructive consequences of their psychological altruism damages all that it touches.

People are easy to socialize-in the negative sense of socially motivated to avoid the self—to encourage them to group-live, run in packs and willingly accept the tyrannical yoke of being a cog in one or several hierarchies in which an elite rules the many without wisdom, or compassion.

 

Lauder continues: “2. According to Mandeville, why do some people practice self-denial? Have politicians convinced people to overcome their self-interest?"

My response: People do practice bad self-denial because they are psychological altruists. They volunteer to engage in this addictive behavior. Good self-denial occurs where virtuous altruism is being kind to others. It is a natural but mostly a learned behavior. Some of it may be hypocritical and for show, as Mandeville feared, but much of it is sincere and genuine for its own sake.

Politicians and other civil authorities, including parents, train the young to overcome their bad other-interest in favor of supporting good other-interest, growing ennobling self-interest and minimizing their desire to hurt themselves or others, and that is bad self-interest.

 

Lauder continues: “With man, the ‘wise’ men or politician s try to convince everyone that everyone is better off if he conquers his appetites and is unselfish. It is very difficult to get persons to conquer their natural inclinations.”

 

My response: Traditional wise leaders of humans are ethical altruists, seeking to convince the masses to conquer their appetites and be unselfish. As an ethical egoist and rational egoist, I would counter that the wise should urge the masses to conquer their appetites and be selfish (good selfishness, not bad selfishness) more than unselfish (being bad unselfish more than good unselfish).

I will define and provide examples of good and bad selfishness and unselfishness and good and bad pleasure and good and bad pain in another blog entry. I will seek to be clear about my terms and how they fit into my system.

I agree that it is very difficult to get people to conquer their natural inclinations. It must be done by appealing to their egoistic pride to succeed and to be good and do well. It would help if people knew that ethical altruism comes from Satan and ethical egoism comes from God.

Lauder continues: The politician contrives an imaginary reward: they charm the savage with praise and flattery . . .”

My response: People are savages. To help them self-transform into living angels, primarily moderate ethical egoists that also are ethical altruists in a minor way, parents and authorities must instruct the young to love themselves, to discipline themselves, to be courteous to all, and this is achievable if they like themselves, praise themselves when they are good, and to criticize themselves humanely but forthrightly when they do evil. In this way the group-living human beast grows into adulthood as a civilized individual-living supercitizen.

 

Lauder continues: “a. First, by saying your superiority over other animals lies precisely in your ability of self-denial—of course, low-minded people do not have this ability.

b. Second, by inventing the rewards of honor and shame: one being the highest good you can aspire to, the other being characteristic of low animals.

 

Man, being prideful, falls for this. And so, the savage is broken.”

 

My response: Our superiority over other animals is our angelic capacities, our free agency, our use of language, our powers of reason. This superiority is not a moral superiority for humans like lower animals are psychological altruists. Animals are moral because the Divine Couple, creators of the cosmos all around us, have set up the universe, in its supernatural and natural aspects, gave animals  instincts to keep them good, and self-asserting, not self-denying (again good self-asserting and good self-denying, not bad self-asserting and bad self-denying).

 

Humans as self-realizers serving the Good Spirits, would love themselves, others, God and lower creatures. This kind of enlightened self-interest allows humans to become good through their reason and free will. Humans as animals are, guided by divine, benevolent instinctts, biologically imprinted as natural law acting upon the natures of animals.

Yes, a useful moral code in society strengthens the naturally weak flabby human conscience so that the virtuous maverizer justly feels proud of his efforts and moral worth, self-honored and other-honored for his good deeds and his developed, good character, an earned, sterling reputation. When he lapses, or turns to vicious sinning, then may his conscience make him feel ashamed of his beastly low conduct and tarnished social standing, based upon his betrayal of the Good Spirits.

It is hoped that high moral standards, community standards, become the internalized guide of the good young person—may the young savage build up his virtuous disposition so that he is a civilized contributor to society.

 

Lauder continues: “3. How, according to Mandeville, were the brutes, or the lower-class, made civilized by the politicians? What are the origins of ‘virtue’ and ‘vice’? Do you agree that virtuous actions are only fictions contrary to human nature invented by politicians?”

My response: Mandeville seems to recommend that wise politicians appeal to people’s pride to get them to be socially cooperative, lawful and responsible, knowing full well that they are beasts and just pretending to be virtuous and altruistic, no matter how noble they appear to be to the approving community.

 

It does not hurt to appeal to people’s higher nature, whether they have one or not—they do but it is weak and needs much nurturing, disciplining and constant reinforcing and rewarding. I would argue that the origin of virtue is self-love or enlightened self-interest, and that vice is self-loathing or excessive altruistic self-motivation.

Much of what passes for virtue is just corrupt altruism, non-individuating, and group-living, disguised as virtue. Still, people can and do improve if they learn how to do and be good.

 

Lauder continues: “These clever men, the skillful politicians, benefit from those who through pride deny their own pleasures. But the politicians were threatened by those who saw through the tricks and were like themselves.

 

So the politicians set up an ethical system and define vice’ as the gratification of appetites, and ‘virtue’ as acting contrary to the impulses of nature. Deities were set up to enforce what the politicians could not enforce: the threats and rewards of hell and heaven.

 

The moral virtues, then, are a political offspring.”

 

My response: Leaders of society should be wise, kind and effective to help people lead free, prosperous, peaceful, lawfully, loving and happy lives. These desirable ends are best achieved where each child learns to maverize, thus internalizing these desirable social attributes and behaviors while doing her own thing on a grand scale. Each individuating youngster has internalized what her parents, God and society and taught her. She will now run her own affairs.

Too often the leader of society set up a pecking order with themselves as the corrupt elite at the top of the social food chain, and the badly selfish altruists, replete with rage, hatred and the love of abusing exploiting, enslaving, commanding, tyrannizing and oppressing the masses. The only workable solution is from the bottom up as the little people self-evolve into anarchist-individuator supercitizens, revolutionizing society peacefully, slowly, lawfully and fully from below, one step at a time, one volunteer gained at a time. There are no short cuts, and the  positive response to being recruited to the side of good must always be freely chosen and no punishment by humans for refusal to join up.

 

Leaders of society do set up an ethical system and define vice as gratification of appetites, and virtue as acting contrary to the impulses of nature. And they are right in doing so. Where they go wrong is defining vice as an egoist trait (which it mostly is not) and defining virtue as an altruistic trait (which it mostly is not). The altruist or groupist indulges his impulses and appetites, and the rational egoist controls himself and denies himself bad selfish desires.

Humans do come up with a system of worldly ethics and supernatural rewards and punishments as meted out by the deity as heaven and hell, but it is not just a human contrivance, but is a divine metaphysical reality set up by the Good Spirits and shared with humans as part of their innate religious yearning and sense.

Lauder continues: 4. In what ways do ‘private vices’ become ‘public benefits’ according to Mandeville? Does the absence of self-love destroy progress?

Pity is just like any other emotion. We would save a baby falling into a fire solely to avoid our own pain. Whoever does good things without coveting thanks, according to Mandeville, is indulging in some secret passion or pleasure which is not immediately obvious—most notably pride.

Hence, by not seeking our own advantage we help others and reap the rewards of honor and pride. It’s our own interest in in society’s interest not to be overtly selfish. The ‘insatiable thirst after fame’ results in public benefits. A person who does not love self is not so driven by flattery and praise.”

My response: Mandeville accepts the late-medieval, Christian moral definition of being vicious as being self-interested, and this leads to the paradox that private vices lead to public benefits.

If one accepts my definition of vice as predominantly other-interest with some self-interest and describes virtue as predominantly self-interest above other-interest, then one’s private enlightened self-interest contributes directly and indirectly to the public good, and this paradox disappears.

Yes, the absence of self-love does destroy progress, and sets up hell on earth, Ameritopia run by Envirostatists and postmodernist Marxists.

There is a willingness to sacrifice ourselves to save others and to be motivated by benevolence for others without gain, but these traits are not robust and global in our personalities, but they can be cultivated as part of our set-up positive behaviors emanating from healthy self-love and enlightened self-interest.

To do evil from self-interest or from altruistic desire exists in each person as does the desire to love or do good as the agent is motivated by constructive self-interest and benevolent other-interest. We are complex moral creatures with competing, swirling moral motives of different types, so the challenge is to integrate these altruistic and egoistic motivates to serve the cause of good achieved by moral choices consistent with one good free will and rational moral choices.

To establish and offer honor and shame to actions respectively virtuous or vicious is to set up a standard for living well in society that if offered and enforced, people will often rise to the standard expected of them.