107. The Righteous Mind, Part 4

Note: This post is the one hundred and seventh in a series about government and commercial ethics. Click here for the full listing of the series. The first post in the series has more detail on the book 'Systems of Survival' by Jane Jacobs which inspired this series.

This week the topic is the book, "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. Having read the book, I highly recommend the NY Times review of it as an excellent summary.

Note that we have encountered the work of Jonathan Haidt before, albeit indirectly, in this earlier post which discussed an essay by Steven Pinker, which was written as a reaction to Haidt's work.

Today's post covers the third of Haidt's three main arguments, that people are 90% chimp and 10% bee, meaning that people are a mix of self-interested and group-interested.

In this section of the book, Haidt eventually defines 'moral systems' as,

"interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make cooperative societies possible."

This definition follows a lengthy argument by Haidt trying to justify the notion that people could have evolved to be cooperative in nature (10% bee), which he no doubt felt was necessary because this is a controversial position to take in the current academic environment. But I didn't need any convincing on that score, so I'm not going to dwell on that aspect of this section of the book.

Instead, let's look more closely at the definition of moral systems spelled out by Haidt.

The first point to make is that it seems a bit narrow, in denyng the possible existence of morality outside of a social context. I tend to agree more with Francis Fukuyama, who, if we recall from an earlier post in the series, stated that,

"The capacity for hard work, frugality, rationality, innovativeness, and openness to risk are all entrepreneurial virtues that apply to individuals and could be exercised by Robinson Crusoe on his proverbial desert island. But there is also a set of social virtues, like honesty, reliability, cooperativeness and a sense of duty to others, that are essentially social in nature."

More recently, we saw that Ayn Rand spokesman John Galt made the point even more clearly,

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island - it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim ... that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today - and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves."

Ayn Rand, in a point echoed more recently by Joseph Heath, emphasized further that there are situations (e.g. corporations that might mutually benefit from cooperative price-fixing) where the pursuit of self-interest at the expense of cooperative behaviour is the best course of action. True, Haidt might argue that this falls under the 'regulation' of self-interest, but it doesn't seem like this sort of thing is what he had in mind.

More generally, Haidt suggests the existence of moral systems, denies that he is a moral relativist who believes that all moral systems are equally valid, and identifies two distinct moral casts of mind present in the population ("WEIRD" and "Normal") but he never makes any sort of attempt to categorize what sort of moral systems might exist or what might make one moral system superior to another.

This is not really criticism, Haidt has already covered a lot of ground, it's just that he went quite far, but mostly stopped short of addressing the questions I've been pursuing in this series. Why do some moral systems apply in some contexts and not others, what makes one moral system superior to another, etc.

Haidt spends a chapter explaining his viewpoint (which I mostly share) that religion may be wrong (supernaturally speaking) but is nevertheless useful (here on earth) because it helps bind communities together and support cooperative efforts (such as feeding the poor or inquisiting heretics). Throughout the third section of the book he emphasizes that our groupish behaviour typically applies only to whichever group we identify with, not with the human race as a whole, but that experimental results have shown as people become more groupish in a situation, the increased love for the in-group outweighs any increased hate for  out-groups.

Haidt briefly (page 266) seems to suggest that religion is beneficial to trade, "In the medieval world, Jews and Muslims excelled in long-distance trade in part because their religions helped them create trustworthy relationships and enforceable contracts." However, he doesn't go on to note that Christians were certainly quite religious during the medieval period as well, or that in modern times, the nations with the highest standard of living tend to be the least religious. Similarly, he doesn't spend any time on the relationship between religion and scientific inquiry. Coming from an Irish background, I can see that religion supports social cohesion, but I might take some convincing that greater religiosity coincides with greater commercial trade.

---

Putting the three different sections of the book together, Haidt has presented three reasons why we struggle to agree on what is right: 1) We have instinctive moral reactions to situations that we rationalize, rather than coming to a rational conclusion based on disinterested reasoning, 2) different people have different sets of moral instincts, and 3) by our nature we are tribal, in the sense that we define ourselves and choose our actions based on the groups that we belong to, not just on our individual situation.

Earlier on in the book, Haidt suggested that rather than aiming for some grand rational argument that would teach us how to all act morally (as he thought Plato was engaged in in The Republic) we should instead try to design society in such a manner that we would naturally behave in a moral manner (which is what Plato actually was engaged in in The Republic). But where Plato set out an elaborate scheme for disentangling two sets of people to follow two distinct moral systems, according to their nature, Haidt has little to offer beyond suggesting that U.S. congressman should bring their families with them to Washington rather than leaving them at home, so that there is more socializing across party lines. But despite the lack of solutions offerred it's an interesting book that just might change the way you think about how you think so it's worth a read.

97. Guardian Syndrome Derangement Syndrome

Note: This post is the ninety-seventh in a series about government and commercial ethics. Click here for the full listing of the series. The first post in the series has more detail on the book 'Systems of Survival' by Jane Jacobs which inspired this series.

Today's post is about a group of people who excel at creating prosperity via trade, but find themselves politically oppressed, the fruits of their labours taken from them with little recompense. In response, the oppressed group undertakes to escape their chains, using trade where necessary and force where necessary to make their way to an unoccupied piece of land that they can call home, one where they will be free from political oppressors who would use force to take their wealth.

The bible contains a story like this, the story of the Jews escaping from the Egyptians and eventually finding their promised land - a story that Jane Jacobs cites in 'Systems of Survival' as a good example of how the same group of people can find success by alternating between using commercial syndrome morality and guardian syndrome morality, depending on which is appropriate in the circumstance.

But today's topic is not the Bible, but rather something less concise, the book 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand. In Atlas Shrugged, the setting is the United States, in the era when railways were still the main form of transportation and planes were a relatively new invention. The U.S. government seems to be run by a collection of corrupt businessmen and politicians and is descending into a mix of fascism and communism. In response, a group of leading industrialists decide to 'Go Galt,' destroying or abandoning their companies, leaving society behind to join a secret community in a remote part of Colorado.

The story, which tells the tale of how the government gradually escalates its level of unprincipled interference with business, is quite lengthy, but luckily the leader of the industrialists, John Galt, sums up Rand's philosophy in a pithy 100 page speech.

Unsurprisingly, as a businessman, John Galt's primary sympathy lies with the Commercial Syndrome. This is made clear enough early on in his speech when he assets that,

"There is a morality of reason ... man's life [is] the life of a thinking being - not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement."

Galt recognizes that, unlike the Guardian syndrome in which most of the precepts relate to interactions between people, the commercial syndrome contains a number of precepts that apply to man on his own, in his battle against his own laziness,

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island - it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim ... that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today - and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves."

Just a little bit later, Galt lists some of the virtues needed for his moral system, a list which generally matches up pretty well with the commercial syndrome:

"rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride."

Finally, a bit later, Galt expresses the commercial basis of his morality explicitly,

"The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit-his love friendship, his esteem- except in payment and in trade for human virtues."

The message is clear, the trader only acts in his own self-interest and cares not for the interests of others. I emphasize this not to criticize, but to contrast with a later point that Galt makes (which we'll get to in a bit).

As for comfort and convenience, Galt makes clear over and over again that this is the primary purpose of existence, perhaps most memorably when he asks,

"who is enslaved by physical needs: the Hindu who labors from sunrise to sunset at the shafts of a hand-plow for a bowl of rice, or the American who is driving a tractor? Who is the conqueror of physical reality: the man who sleeps on a bed of nails or the man who sleeps on an inner-spring mattress."

Only a commercially minded philosopher would take the time in his manifesto to extol the comfort of the inner-spring mattress!

Naturally, in a moral system based on trade, using force is a big no-no for Galt,

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate-do you hear me? no man may start the use of physical force against others."

Galt spends so much time repetitively criticizing those who would use force for corrupt purposes that it is easy to lose track of the fact that he does condone the use of force when necessary. Perhaps the most remarkable passage of Atlas Shrugged is this one, where Galt describes when he will use force.

"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil."

The story backs this statement up, containing a number of instances where Galt and his fellow tribe members throw comfort and convenience to the winds and sacrifice themselves by showing fortitude, employing force and fraud, discipline and obedience in order to successfully fight physical battles against their enemies. On one instance there is a pitched battle vs. troublemakers at a steel factory, in another case, there is a hostage to be rescued.

So notice what has happened here. Galt spends 98 pages of his 100 page speech talking about how the only set of moral values that exists is the commercial syndrome, where self-interest rules, comfort and convenience are paramount and force and fraud are verboten. But then in the other 2 pages he sneaks in this alternate world where, when violence is initiated, suddenly action must be taken, and now force and fraud are not just allowed, but required, and the person undertaking them is expected to be proficient in their use. Not only that, but these actions of force and fraud must only be undertaken in a spirit of sacrifice, in which comfort and convenience are discarded or put at risk, and it is acting in self-interest that is now forbidden!

Later on, Galt allows that government is needed to enforce rules, to retaliate against those who would commit violence, and to defend the state against enemies from outside. Sadly he never seems to explain how it is the people doing this will be paid, or how they will be restrained from using their power to enrich themselves.

I think that if Rand hadn't been inflicted with such a strong a case of Guardian derangement syndrome (or Guardian syndrome derangement?), much like the one that got Thorstein Veblen, she probably could have set out a pretty reasonable pair of moral syndromes that matched up fairly well with Plato and Jane Jacobs. It's just too bad her work is filled with so much distracting pointlessness (such as the endless insistence that reality is real or that only gold can be 'real money') that it takes away from this message.


---
As an aside, one of the more ludicrous story elements in 'Atlas Shrugged' is the notion that society collapses because a couple of hundred industrialists head off to Colorado for a while. Which is fine, the story is meant to make a point, not to be plausible, but I thought it was interesting to point out why Rand needed such an unbelievable plot point in her book.

The great weakness of a collection of traders is that they are all out for their own interest and that they are (by definition) incapable of acting in a collective manner. Their nature is competition, not monopoly. In the real world, if Steve Jobs left for Colorado and destroyed the Apple company, there are plenty of others willing and able to manufacture phones and provide a service to download songs from the internet. If General Motors shut down, the other car companies could easily pick up the slack. But in Atlas Shrugged, Rand is constantly creating little mini-monopolies by insisting that there is only one company that can make steel properly, only one railway that can run a decent operation, only one person who can find and produce oil, etc.

Rand needs these monopolies in order to allow her collection of industrialists who go on 'strike' and leave for Colorado to have an actual impact on society, instead of just looking foolish. But Rand, who was so attentive to the nature of the commercial syndrome - the competition, the lack of solidarity that would prevent any strike action from being successful, really should have known better. After all, even the Bible, which certainly doesn't shy away from implausible pronouncements, didn't try to insist that Egyptian society collapsed because it couldn't function without the Jews, so that Moses could come back to give the Pharaoh a long, tedious, 'I told you so.'