Government: Tocqueville - Democracy, Hobson's Choice, One size fits all, Shoes, Mobolobocrazy, Directory
Society: Bumbling Hive, Commodificataion, Consumption, Curmudgeons, Economist, Education, Fable of the Bees, Free Trade, Ignorance is bliss, Kleenex society, Mandeville, One size fits all, Pedantry, Truth, Venture capitalist, War, Directory
People: Economics according to Janeway, Alpha Male, Bottle Babes, Davis, Escape from Reality, Hudibras, McCain, Nobel Prize, The President, Scold, Suburu, Directory
Business: Economist, Free Trade, Sotweed Factor, Venture Capitalist, Directory
******
Some individuals within society appear to be dancing to a different drummer than the rest of us. How can it be? Their inner self or Self-Love as some might have called it in an earlier time seems to be a clock that is wound in the reverse. They appear to have not the faintest knowledge or interest in keeping to the "straight and narrow," but instead having studied the system have found ways in which they can either beat it or else to avoid the penalties that most mortals must suffer. Herein lies the dilemma. Can they be made to conform or are they regardless of societies pressures destined to continue on their errant ways? A couple of examples to set the scene:
Saddam Hussein held the reins to his country and regardless of "outside" influences appeared to be capable and able of proceeding, suffering no apparent harm (to himself or his enabled ones). Fellow citizens of his country paid the price for his indulgencies but that was of little concern to him as long as he remained in power. Having surrounded himself with a controlling authority, why should be care what the rest of the world thinks?
Children play a game, King of the Hill, where having gained the top of a small pile of dirt, or perhaps (which is more attuned to these examples) an inner circle drawn in the sand, remain the King, so long as they cannot be brought down or drawn out. How like the current circumstances this child's game is. So long as the attack on the "King" is uncoordinated or from one side or the other, it is unlikely that he will be disposed. In fact, if he is aided by those outside his inner circle, then the opposition has less chance of success.
Why then do those who recognize the "evil" of the King, give support to him? The answer is easy. Because they believe rightly or wrongly that they will benefit and thus they have a vested interest in seeing that the system remains unchanged. Now all the King has to do is by promises, occasional rewards or threats of personal injury to keep the supporters in line. Suddenly, his cause(s) become theirs. Although, they do not realize that the King has mostly given mouth-service to them and their interest.
Self-love then can substitute for ethics (or morals when they are of an interest other than our own.) Now the King who often is a scholar of the constitution of his own country and thus understands the limits of the law and how it may apply to others, can use this same knowledge to justify his or her own actions. Catch the King in an act of wrong doing and he or she will immediately bite their lip, look wide-eyed and perhaps teary-eyed ahead and claim that they have been wronged, they were trying to do the work of the people and their attackers are only out to bring about their downfall. You can be sure that while they are claiming innocence, they are plotting revenge against their so-called attackers.
So ethics is what a person should reasonably be expected to do under usual circumstances, while self love or motivation is what occurs driven by the inner windings of the King's clock. Paul McReynolds writing in the introduction to "An Essay on the Nature and Conduct of the Passions and Affections with Illustrations of the Moral Sense" which was penned by Francis Hutcheson prior to 1742, provides an analysis of what ethics and motivation are all about. McReynolds considers that today, scholars clearly separate these two different passions, while in Hutcheson's day they were much in debate as to the interrelationship between them, and Hutcheson strove to show how these forces explained man's actions.
Today, we ask what motivates a person to do that which he is observed to do? It is natural to believe that an inner spirit should cause or motivate a person to behave in a moral manner. That's fine for the common folk, but the King need not comply with these rules. In essence, he makes his own and sees himself immune from the dictates of society.
If "Passions" are separated into four categories: pleasure, pain, desire and fear; we can begin to understand the motivation of our Kings. Seeking pleasures that are both physical and emotional can become an all controlling force. The satisfaction of physical gratification not unlike wanting food, or other possessions including having one subservient to one's self. Represents one horn of the dilemma, the other the desire for emotional recompense, that is approval or stroking is just as strong as drive.
Now pain represents an alternative view, on the one hand if pain is inflicted on the King, that is considered bad, but if inflicted on another, then it begins to look a bit like the emotional reward or counter reward that society inflicts.
Then you come to desire. Again, Self-love provides a means of granting satisfaction to the desires of the mind and body. Striving to fulfil those desires can become all encompassing with the result that the King sees satiation of a desire as natural.
And finally pain. "I feel your Pain" has been used more that once to express a means of glossing over inadequacies and drawing together those who might otherwise not be supportive of the King's actions. If the pain were real then a response would be expected, not unlike one removing a finger from the flame. But if it is perceived that the pain is only an interlude, it becomes more bearable. If the toe is stumped, the message of pain is immediately signaled to the brain, and while the toe may hurt for a prolonged period of time, if a finger is caught in a door subsequently, the toe's pain is immediately forgotten and the all consuming interest in getting the finger out of the door becomes the driving force. Such it is with the King. In seeking the next adventure, today's pain is quickly forgotten.
So we arrive at one possible conclusion; moral behavior is based on self-interest. Even to those who are lowly subjects to the king can understand this reasoning and therefore while not forgiving the King for his antics, can see that the line between ethics (that which should be done because it is right and proper) and that which is done (motivation) is clearly drawn.
It remains for society to impose limits to what is permissible. And when an individual violates these rules (or laws if you prefer), some level of punishment is necessary. Otherwise, the offender will continue to flaunt the mores of his community. Clear cases of psychotic behavior which endangers civilization are an endless list but foremost on the account against individuals is rape, murder, dismemberment, and degradation of a persons' reputation. When society implements laws to ensure public responsibility, violation of those laws demands that some suitable punishment must be forthcoming. However, a balance between "crime" and "punishment" must be struck. Where does it end?
Missing from this approach to understanding why a person acts against the rule of law or violates the moral or ethical structure of society is the possibility that there exist in the many faces of man, the likelihood that some individuals act without the controlling social or legal authority that serves to shape society. Some act without remorse or even appear to show signs of pleasure in acknowledging their actions. That's why we have prisons and levels of punishment that are measured to the crime.
The King has overstepped that line times before and will continue to do so if rewards are given and there is no punishment imposed.
****
Joe Wortham's Home Page, About Joe Wortham, Directory of Web Pages
A History of Philosophy, Wilhelm Windelband, MacMillian, Second edition. New York, 1921 (With special reference to the formation and development of its problems and conceptions. Translation by James H. Tufts, University of Chicago.)
Questions? Comments? [email protected]