This is intended as a sort of postscript to The ethics of selfishness.
Most people are primarily motivated by self interest, but it’s worth considering what form this takes. The simplest self interest is to gain pleasure and avoid pain; food, sex, shelter, and safety. These are motivations crafted by evolution, and they include the satisfactions of curiosity, caring for children, pairbonding, and having a place in a social hierarchy. Unless such interests have become pathological or addictive, they are usually satisfied by wealth and hard work in such a way as to contribute positively to society.
But not all motivations are what I would call sane. Out of insecurity, elite boarding schools, bad parenting, or for no reason at all, a person’s desires can be magnified or twisted or become addiction. Where this manifests as simple criminal behaviour, the problem is limited. Where it manifests as a craving for status or fame it may be good or bad for society in general, depending on the person, their talents, and the situation. What causes all sorts of difficulty for everyone is when a person’s desire is for power over others.
Wealth, or less often education, can be a means to power, but in Western society the major routes involve the bureaucracy of government or of large corporations. These bureaucracies are the perfect environment for the power hungry. Entrance is usually dependent on a certain kind of background, although there are exceptions. Just as in ancient Rome it’s necessary to be able to curry favour with the right patron at the right time. But the most important qualities are also timeless: dedication, ruthlessness, and a desire to manipulate people.
Everyone accepts that these are the people who will rise to the top of the political parties, the government departments, and the large corporations. We know that the system requires people to be dedicated and intelligent. But along with this we are aware that we are selecting ruthless, amoral, and manipulative people to run all aspects of our society.
You may say that George Bush is remarkable because he doesn’t seem to display intelligence or dedication. At some level we suspect that he either hides his light under a bushel or he has good minders, but perhaps he’s proof that patronage is more important than ability. In which case perhaps this is proof that there’s more real power in the corporate boardrooms than the oval office. The one who really stood out in my mind was Jimmy Carter, but the presence of an occasional exception only throws the predominant situation into better relief.
Twenty years ago I was involved with a community radio station. When it was first set up it attracted music nuts and people who believed in the idea. As it gained listeners it became more and more a magnet for the power hungry. Before long we were treated to repeated special general meetings and people signed up as members for the sole purpose of voting the megalomaniacs into control of the station.
Which begs the question: do we really want people like this to be running our society? And if we don’t, is there anything we can do about it?
It seems to me that there are two aspects to this problem. The first is the difference in scale of power between the individual and the group. Corporations and government both have freedom of action, and freedom from responsibility for their actions, which are qualitatively as well as quantitatively greater than that possessed by an individual. The second is that we have created a system of laws regulations and custom, which rewards qualities we don’t want in the people who will have power over us. I would like to see a system, even a society, which balances the power of individuals and groups, and one which requires and values agreed altruistic virtues in the powerful, rather than rewarding the most base qualities with advancement.