Manderville argues that “private vices” (or self-interest) leads to “publick benefits” (such as social structures like language, law and markets). This is because thinkers like Manderville posit that the best approach for running a society is to create and maintain a Capitalist structure where all members commercialize their effort and make the best of it in terms of profiting from their activities. This paper posits that the benefit of such a commercial society is that it enables people to turn their selfish and unsociable passion into good and positive things. The paper will evaluate this thesis in the light of the ideas of classical philosophers who lived and worked after the Reformation.
Natural and Inherent Features of the Human Being
Baron de Montesquieu identifies that all human beings have their own laws that they adapt to and use as a means of guiding them in whatever they do in life. This is because every intelligent person has some kind of views on how things should be and since survival is the fundamental and key element and aspect of every individual’s life, there is the need for everyone to seek his own personal and subjective end in life. No one can change the desire of a person to put out something he considers to be right in order to benefit from it. And in so doing, there are personal and subjective definitions of what is right and what is wrong.
Hume also commences his discussions by identifying that human beings have different temperaments and different degrees of desires to indulge in various activities and pleasures. This also contributes to the fact that we all have desires and feelings that causes us to move in particular directions. This is something that is in-born and no one can do much about it. Therefore, we are guided by our personal and individual desires and drives. However, Hume identifies that each of the choices we make have consequences. They all brings some kind of result to us and this determines whether things end up right or wrong for us.
Rousseau on the other hand, argues that the individual wants his natural rights respected and honored and in the process, he wants to achieve his biggest aims and objectives in life. This is because every human being has a personal desire and this is one that a person wants to commit his or her life to.
Therefore, it is conclusive that all the four authorities featured above support the idea that the human being has personal and individualistic desires and ends. This might culminate from external pressure and sensibilities. On the other hand, it could be due to intrinsic and personal desires or expectation from each and every one of us in society. Therefore, every human being has this drive and it cannot be subjected.
In relation to Europe a century or two before these writers wrong their treatises, there was a tendency of subjecting members of society to the will of the Church and the nobility. Therefore, everyone had to compromise on his or her personal desires and try to meet the ends and expectations presented by the authorities in their time. However, these philosophers presented a position that the human being has a general and a natural sentiment to pursue and chase things that he considers to be important.
Free choice and free will is therefore seen to be central and important in human life. This is seen to be natural and there is no amount of activities and procedures that will change it. The most extreme thing that anyone can do is to subject it. However, in situation where a person’s desires and expectations are suppressed, that individual does not fail to fantasize and find innovative ways and means of seeking his personal desires and personal ends.
Social Rules and Laws
Although all the philosophers critiqued in this study identify that the human being has personal desires guided by inner sentiments and expectations, they also agree to the need for rules and regulations. “Laws in their most general signification are the necessary relation arising from the nature of things.”. Although Montesquieu asserts that the intelligent being is guided by personal desires and expectations, he asserts that law is a natural order of things. This is because there is the need for rules and regulations to be put in place to guide the way and manner within which people do things.
Therefore, it can be said that Montesquieu believes that although we all have our personal motivations and personal desires, there is the need for laws to be instituted that will ensure that there are various approaches and ways through which we can seek our personal desires and personal ends without violating the natural order of things. Therefore, it appears that there is a motivation for allowing personal desires and personal interests to exist side-by-side with the wider good and wider expectations of the society, which can be done through the institution and maintenance of rules and regulations in the society.
Hume on the other hand believes that ethics are inborn and are not learnt, they are natural and important in the affairs of society and they just take place when different people come together and they are interacting, these ethics arise naturally. “The moral of delivering true general precepts in ethics is indeed very small.”. Therefore, to Hume, good laws are natural and they arise as a result of the interaction of different peoples from different backgrounds who come together to create and attain a kind of social setting where there is the interaction of different desires and expectations.
The arguments of these two authorities therefore posit that although we might have different selfish ends and desires in our integration to society, we still have strong desires to follow rules. This means that there is a form of synthesis that involves the allows different competing claims and expectations to come together in the form of a harmonious society and a social setting whereby there is some kind of regulation where different competing claims converge.
It is therefore evident from these analyses that no matter how extreme our desires and claims might be, those claims and those interaction always come together at a unique convergence point where we create a synthesis and there is some kind of regulation by the authorities when these discussion go on.
The discussions come to an interesting conflict point where the question of “what form and shape a legitimate authority should take”. This is because at the time of these writings in the 1700s , there were authorities that could regulate the conduct of people and try to subject people’s selfish needs. However, it appears that these scholars were discussing the limitations of the existing system and process. Thus, the definition of an appropriately legitimate authority was a major challenge and problem. This is because if we are to accept that individual selfish desire was important, it is vital to have an egalitarian authority that will ensure that the best and the most significant ends of the people are achieved in all contexts and manners. Otherwise, selfishness and unsociable passions would lead to the benefit of a few and cause the detriment of many, as the nobility and Church had done in Europe at the time these treatises were being written.
Authorities like Adam Smith identified that an ideal situation is where there is an invisible hand that regulates affairs in an objective and unfeeling way whereby only the best things are encouraged to thrive and the worst die naturally. This asserts that Adam Smith and contemporary writers believed that the creation of a neutral authority that does not take sides was going to create an efficient society whereby the best and most important personal interests and desires of members of the society will fuel growth and expansion.
Moreover, Jean Jacques Rousseau identifies that there is the need for a social contract in which the rights of man is instituted and respected in all situations and matters. This implies that Rousseau argues that there must be some kind of system through which the individual selfish desires can be carried out. However, there must be a legitimate authority that guides this in order to ensure that two things will happen.
First of all, Rousseau argues that there must be a framework through which individual desires and expectations can be maximized in all aspects of life in an ideal nation or state. This is because he asserts that “ According to the natural order, on the other hand, these different wills become very active in proportion as they are concentrated. Thus, the general will is always the weakest, the corporate will second and the individual will the strongest of all”. This indicates that individual will is strongest and a nation is collectively going to be stronger if all individuals were allowed to be at their best.
Secondly, he also identifies that the authority of the Sovereign is important because it helps to maximize the collective identity of the people and tends to improve regulations and achieve things that individual power and individual might cannot achieve. Therefore, there is a general desire to create a system through which laws and authority will exist in an ideal social contract setting. However, people must be given power to pursue their own selfish and personal ends in order to become the best they could potentially be.
Montesquieu goes on to say that concentrating power on monarchies could create a system whereby the individual will could be suppressed in favor of the personal and selfish interest of the nobility. This is because every individual has a sense of analysis and a motivation to pursue what he considers to be his best interest and in order to be his best, there is the need to allow people to live in a system whereby they could achieve their best interest by working for it in a process where there are fair laws not overridden by anyone. This again shows that the individual will and the individual selfish desire gives the strongest and the best motivation for the achievement of any end know to human societies.
However, the kind of authority that is in place provides a major difference in all contexts and defines the best interest of the society and the state. Therefore, the main feature of legitimate authority has to be the ability of the society to regulate things. This is because in the dialogues of Maderville, that although men are allowed to pursue their own gains, “ it must follow that it is always wrong for men to pursue gain or pleasure by means that are visibly detrimental to civil society”.
In his outward criticism of the ideas of holding on to power in the Machiavellian way (which appeared to be a devilish and evil way to him), Hume identified that it is best for the state to focus more on the things that brings the best results. Therefore, the law and the authority of the Sovereign will have to be construed to be one that benefits the people individually, rather than one that keeps the authorities in power.
Therefore, there seem to be a consensus by the authors that individual needs and individual desires is the most important because it gives the strongest and best motivation. However, they also agree that there must be some kind of authority system that allows all members of the society to achieve their best interest. The sovereign authority must be one that does not play a proactive police role in the society; neither should it seek individual selfish goals of the nobility, oligarchy or some selected members of society. Rather, it must seek the best and most optimum results for most of the people of the country or the community.
Commercialization of Individual Society
Cleo says in the discourse of Manderville that each individual has his self worth. This implies that every individual has something unique and distinct that s/he brings into the world. Therefore, there is the impetus for this ability or unique resource in everyone to be put out in order to work to provide the best results for people who benefit from it.
Montesquieu argues that the Greeks did not have the best forms of governance in their city states, rather they had a very just system through which trade and commerce could be carried out. This implies that the Greeks got a better quality of life simply because they were able to provide their services and goods to other members who made good exchanges for these products. Thus, they were able to have a relatively better quality of lives and there is evidence that this led to specialization and the proper utilization of resources. Therefore, the commercialization of personal goods allow people to vent out their selfish desires and expectations and with an appropriate government in place, a people could streamline their selfish ends and commercialize it in order to create an appropriately progressive and positive lifestyle.
The different authorities and philosophers studied in this paper identify that it is natural for people to pursue their own selfish desires and ends. This is because although we all belong to the same society, we have individual drives and motivations that keep us going. Rousseau identifies that the individual drive of a person is stronger than the drive of corporate entities which is also stronger than the drive of the state or government. Therefore, a nation’s best interest is to allow individuals to streamline their motivations and pursue their personal and selfish ends.
In the process, there is the need for a sovereign authority to surface to maintain law and order. This is because the scholars previewed in this study identify that there is the need for a natural authority to emerge that will control the interaction of people in the society. However, these authorities, including Adam Smith identify that the sovereign authority must only act in a commercial society where it is important. This means that the selfish needs and unsociable passions of people can be streamlined and optimized in a setting whereby the authorities are acting in good faith. This means that the excesses and negative impacts of selfish and unsociable passion can be controlled and limited by the authorities of the nation and state.
Another view presented by authorities like Montesquieu indicates that although there is the need for sovereign authority to control the excesses of individual selfish passion, there is also a case to limit the power and authority of the sovereign. This is because the sovereign authority has to work for the best interest of the state. Hence Rousseau identifies that the state must be organized in a way and manner that the rights of the individual to pursue their passion is achieved in the best way possible.
In combining all the components, I state that individual passion is the strongest passion possible. And although it is selfish, it is potentially the best way of improving and enhancing society because when it is commercialized in the best framework of a good authoritative leadership, individual passion, selfish passions and unsociable passions can potentially be tamed and used for the best interest of all stakeholders in a given society and community. Therefore, the essence of a commercial or Capitalist society as it appears in modern discourse is that it enables individuals to give off their best and convert individual potential into the best possible ends by maintaining the rule of law and the regulation of the society in a democratic manner to achieve the best results for all and sundry. It is therefore true that private selfish interest can potentially be harnessed to achieve public benefits but through proper care and regulation.
Hume, D. (1889). Moral, Political and Literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Mandeville, B. (1988). The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Publick Benefits. In F. B. Kaye. London: Clarendon Press. Retrieved from Liberty Fund.
Montesquieu, M. D. (1777). The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu. London: T. Evans.
Rousseau, J. J. (1923). Every Man's Library. London: JM Dent & Sons.
Smith, A. (1790). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. New York: Penguin.