Bernard Mandeville
Bernard Mandeville was a Dutch physician (b. 1670 in Rotterdam), who moved to England, apparently to learn the language. In 1704 he published a poem of doggerel couplets, The Grumbling Hive, which he included in his 1714 book, The Fable of the Bees, Or, Private Vices, Public Benefits. It is one of those rare books whose title conveys, as we shall see, the pitch of the argument. His apparent praise of libertines and expressions of contempt for virtue naturally inspired attacks from prominent men, and even today few libertarians are candid enough to endorse his views.
What Mandeville's agenda was, I don't know. Some have seen his motives as satiric--poking fun at holier-than-thou politicians, but I think we have to take him at face value, at least, in arguing that economic vitality is better encouraged by vice than by virtue. In his psychology, he was both an anti-rationalist and an egoist: that human beings do what they do for selfish and irrational reasons is hardly an original concept, but Mandeville, with the coldness of a good physician, carries it to the nth degree.
To go deeper than this, we have to look at the text, which is available online at the Liberty Fund's site. Let us begin with the poem, "The Grumbling Hive." Observe that the bees, before affecting virtue, live in a happy discontented state under a constitutional monarchy that is neither tyranny nor "wild democracy." It is an exuberant and amoral society of makers and users, buyers and sellers:
Vast Numbers throng’d the fruitful Hive;
Yet those vast Numbers made ’em thrive;
Millions endeavouring to supply
Each other’s Lust and Vanity;
In his prose reflections (Enquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue), Mandeville clearly expresses an egotist point of view. All animals, unless subjected to discipline, seek to satisfy their appetites, while moralists and legislators have labored--mostly in vain--to teach human animals restraint. Rather than using coercion, wise legislators have relied more on flattery, on establishing a moral hierarchy. At the bottom are libertine proles who are governed by their appetites; while at the top are sublime and virtuous creatures who subject their desires to moral discipline. For this task, religion was required.
Although Mandeville lays great stress on the formation of moral correctness through praise and flattery, his argument is really the argument of Plato's uncle Critias: By nature we ruthlessly pursue our own interest, but the weak have invented religion and morality to prevent the great men from having their way. The pursuit of power is natural, while law, morality, and religion are mere conventions.
Before condemning Mandeville's skepticism, let us at least look at his assumptions. In everything he writes, he is a hedonist-individualist. The human race consists of more intelligent animals, each one seeking to fulfill its desires and tamed only by a coercive system of flattery and religion. However, if we strip away the hypocrisy and let the good times roll, we shall all be richer and happier.
Is any of this true?
Are any animals actually individualists? If we follow Darwin and the sociobiologists, the answer is absolutely not. As the novelist Samuel Butler once put it brilliantly: a chicken is simply an egg's way of creating more eggs. In other words, though group selection is probably an untrue theory, what matters is the genetic stock.
It is interesting that Mandeville uses a hive of bees for his allegory. Of all creatures, the social insects are the less prone to individualism. Genetically, the workers are more or less clones, and they devote themselves selflessly to feeding the young and defending the Queen. The hive is really the perfect model for a socialist state. One wouldn't expect Mandeville to know this, but even someone who had read the fourth book of Vergil's Georgics would have second thoughts about even a fanciful treatment of bees as self-seeking individualists.
Among animals of larger brains, a great deal of time and energy is consumed by taking care of the offspring, and as we go up the ladder from mice to dogs to baboons to chimpanzees, children require more and more care. When we reach humans, whose larger brain requires them to be born premature, the care is much greater than what is required even for chimpanzees, and the more civilized the humans, the more care and education the kids need.
Man born into a family is compelled to sustain society--that is Hume's answer to individualism and the social contract.
But let us suspend the reality test, for a moment, and suppose it does not matter whether man is wired to lives as a rootless individualist or as a member of a community. Mandeville seems to assume that human happiness is reducible to the satisfaction of desires and that an increase in prosperity makes us happier. However, he does not actually say what happiness is. Naturally, most (nearly all of us) would prefer, as Aristotle takes for granted, wealth over poverty, just as we prefer health to disease, life to death, and the fulfillment of our carnal needs (food, sex, shelter) to starvation, celibacy, and exposure to the elements, but is there something for which we would sacrifice any or all of these lesser goods?
A Christian would answer "salvation," and the pagan Aristotle would almost agree. We need friends and family to fulfill our social nature, and the misery of our children or fellow-citizens affects us. We also need wealth, he says, to be able to provide leisure, and leisure to be able to cultivate our minds so that we may fulfill our highest nature in contemplating the Good (which Christians identify with God). These people--and I have named only two groups to which we could add Taoists and Confucianists and Hindus and Buddhists--would laugh at Mandeville for confusing ends with means. Yes, most of us (those who are not ascetic saints) would prefer wealth to poverty, but only in order to be able to lead the lives we believe we ought to
[To be continued..]
Entries(RSS)
What Mandeville's agenda was, I don't know. Some have seen his motives as satiric--poking fun at holier-than-thou politicians, but I think we have to take him at face value, at least, in arguing that economic vitality is better encouraged by vice than by virtue. In his psychology, he was both an anti-rationalist and an egoist: that human beings do what they do for selfish and irrational reasons is hardly an original concept, but Mandeville, with the coldness of a good physician, carries it to the nth degree.
To go deeper than this, we have to look at the text, which is available online at the Liberty Fund's site. Let us begin with the poem, "The Grumbling Hive." Observe that the bees, before affecting virtue, live in a happy discontented state under a constitutional monarchy that is neither tyranny nor "wild democracy." It is an exuberant and amoral society of makers and users, buyers and sellers:
Vast Numbers throng’d the fruitful Hive;
Yet those vast Numbers made ’em thrive;
Millions endeavouring to supply
Each other’s Lust and Vanity;
I think we have to take him at face value, at least, in arguing that economic vitality is better encouraged by vice than by virtue
Actually, there is some merit to that line of thought when it comes to individual and short-term thinking. It has been said that same-sex marriage passed through the NY Assembly because big-time Republican donors threatened to withhold campaign contributions if it was not passed. But why would they care? Because these libertines knew that legalizing same-sex marriage in New York would boost gay tourism, and they understand full well that the gay yuppie demographic has one of the highest average disposable incomes of any group.
In the long run, of course, immoral decisions that benefit a few individuals economically prove parasitic and lead to death, disease and chaos to society writ large. The libertine economic mentality is somewhat akin to the sociopath or psychopath in its selfish manipulation of societal, economic and cultural devices.
"In the long run, of course, immoral decisions that benefit a few individuals economically prove parasitic and lead to death, disease and chaos to society writ large."
Indeed. In considering the potential economic benefit to be gained by turning a blind eye to sin in our midst, I could not help but call to mind:
quid enim prodest homini si mundum universum lucretur animae vero suae detrimentum patiatur
Brandon,
Yes, the type of profit one is seeking makes all the difference. Profit to his home and family, to his way of life, to his bank account,for the souls of his faithful departed, etc. Science in the sense we use the word today is closer to what our tradition considered to be dialectic... Not this, then maybe that... always renewing our hypothesis to fit the facts observed from experience and experiment. But in practice and in faith we use this notion of science as the substitute for what is metaphysics, which concerns realities that don't move, don't change, or remain true from age to age. Economics is not metaphysics and is more of a practical art on how to live well and manage our homes and neighborhoods to perform good work towards a good life. It is false as hell when reduced to simply jobs, supply and demand.
As Wendell Berry has written, " the simple and reductionist formula of supply and demand is more fittingly used to describe the economics of rats and roaches than the life of human beings"
In his prose reflections (Enquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue), Mandeville clearly expresses an egotist point of view. All animals, unless subjected to discipline, seek to satisfy their appetites, while moralists and legislators have labored--mostly in vain--to teach human animals restraint. Rather than using coercion, wise legislators have relied more on flattery, on establishing a moral hierarchy. At the bottom are libertine proles who are governed by their appetites; while at the top are sublime and virtuous creatures who subject their desires to moral discipline. For this task, religion was required.
Although Mandeville lays great stress on the formation of moral correctness through praise and flattery, his argument is really the argument of Plato's uncle Critias: By nature we ruthlessly pursue our own interest, but the weak have invented religion and morality to prevent the great men from having their way. The pursuit of power is natural, while law, morality, and religion are mere conventions.
Before condemning Mandeville's skepticism, let us at least look at his assumptions. In everything he writes, he is a hedonist-individualist. The human race consists of more intelligent animals, each one seeking to fulfill its desires and tamed only by a coercive system of flattery and religion. However, if we strip away the hypocrisy and let the good times roll, we shall all be richer and happier.
Is any of this true?
Are any animals actually individualists? If we follow Darwin and the sociobiologists, the answer is absolutely not. As the novelist Samuel Butler once put it brilliantly: a chicken is simply an egg's way of creating more eggs. In other words, though group selection is probably an untrue theory, what matters is the genetic stock.
It is interesting that Mandeville uses a hive of bees for his allegory. Of all creatures, the social insects are the less prone to individualism. Genetically, the workers are more or less clones, and they devote themselves selflessly to feeding the young and defending the Queen. The hive is really the perfect model for a socialist state. One wouldn't expect Mandeville to know this, but even someone who had read the fourth book of Vergil's Georgics would have second thoughts about even a fanciful treatment of bees as self-seeking individualists.
Among animals of larger brains, a great deal of time and energy is consumed by taking care of the offspring, and as we go up the ladder from mice to dogs to baboons to chimpanzees, children require more and more care. When we reach humans, whose larger brain requires them to be born premature, the care is much greater than what is required even for chimpanzees, and the more civilized the humans, the more care and education the kids need.
Man born into a family is compelled to sustain society--that is Hume's answer to individualism and the social contract.
"Man born into a family is compelled to sustain society."
With so many children now being born to women only, I wonder how long society can persist with this human invention of seperated spouses divorced from their offspring without returning to their original animal intincts shared with even the Canada goose --- who also tends to mate for life?
Christ indicated this marraige of spouses was the rule or custom "from the beginning" and only with the growing hardness of hearts did we need to invent bills of divorce and the consequent alienation and estrangement of families. It is a very interesting question that Hume raises because I do not believe he could ever have anticipated the absent family to the degree we possess it today.
With so many children now being born to women only, I wonder how long society can persist with this human invention of seperated spouses divorced from their offspring without returning to their original animal intincts shared with even the Canada goose — who also tends to mate for life?
The cultural poverty of contemporary society can be accounted for in large measure by this trend. There are no anthropological records of truly matriarchal societies because, as we are learning and as one poster on these pages said, they are "regressive and primitive" and destined to fail.
Updated: 1:10 p.m. | Gov. Scott Walker has ordered the Wisconsin State Patrol to provide additional law enforcement help at the Wisconsin State Fair after several incidents involving rampaging youths broke out on the fairgrounds and on the streets outside Thursday night.
Mr. Moses,
Is this the type of thing you meant by regressive and primitive, Or were you talking about contemporary references to the ancients such as Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Basil, Augustine and Jerome?
But let us suspend the reality test, for a moment, and suppose it does not matter whether man is wired to lives as a rootless individualist or as a member of a community. Mandeville seems to assume that human happiness is reducible to the satisfaction of desires and that an increase in prosperity makes us happier. However, he does not actually say what happiness is. Naturally, most (nearly all of us) would prefer, as Aristotle takes for granted, wealth over poverty, just as we prefer health to disease, life to death, and the fulfillment of our carnal needs (food, sex, shelter) to starvation, celibacy, and exposure to the elements, but is there something for which we would sacrifice any or all of these lesser goods?
A Christian would answer "salvation," and the pagan Aristotle would almost agree. We need friends and family to fulfill our social nature, and the misery of our children or fellow-citizens affects us. We also need wealth, he says, to be able to provide leisure, and leisure to be able to cultivate our minds so that we may fulfill our highest nature in contemplating the Good (which Christians identify with God). These people--and I have named only two groups to which we could add Taoists and Confucianists and Hindus and Buddhists--would laugh at Mandeville for confusing ends with means. Yes, most of us (those who are not ascetic saints) would prefer wealth to poverty, but only in order to be able to lead the lives we believe we ought to
Mr. Reavis: I think the slide into barbarism is pretty broadly interpretable across a large variety of historical situations.
"most of us would prefer wealth to poverty, but only in order to be able to lead the lives we believe we ought to."
Yes, this is true. Years ago the Marxist and traditionalists would argue over whether men lived to work or worked to live. I think today the entire question has been turned on its head and it is simply about jobs, jobs, jobs. The last Presidential candidate who drew a distinction between good jobs and servile labor was Pat Buchanan.
Someone named Mark Erickson, who wants to continue using the moniker "Norwegian Shooter," says he can easily refute the argument, but like all braggarts he cannot be troubled to offer even one argument. Even if we were to permit the use of a "handle," I should think even a libertarian would realize the tastelessness of such a name in these days. But if someone believes that the sun, moon, and stars rise and set around his glorious and self-justifyng ego, then he need consult neither the feelings of others nor common decency. Rules either apply to other people or there are no rules, but if there are no rules, why should we tolerate the little boors who trouble our serenity and waste pennies of band width?
I do not at all say that Mandeville would make this argument, but Mr. Erickson is a perfect illustration of the perpetual adolescence into which one falls by accepting the individualist argument. In debates with libertarians, I always ask them what is to prevent me from killing them? A non-aggression principle invented by a libertarian? As the Duke would say (at least in a movie), "Not hardly."
Dr. Fleming, since you say that wealth is a useful means to the right ends (implicitly, I suppose you say that wealth is not the only means) -
would you say that ascetism and rejection of all worldly wealth is itself a wrongful and misguided goal, perhaps as much as pursuit of wealth?
Mr Sanjay, though your question was asked of Dr Fleming, I'll give you my perspective on it in the mean time. I think that asceticism and rejection of worldly wealth are suitable to people with certain personality types. Monks, for instance, would likely be of such a type. Most everybody else have personalities which would make them fail miserably at trying to live such a lifestyle. Asceticism is a means to a spiritual end, not suited to most people.
Likewise, some people seem naturally well suited to habits and endeavours which lead to wealth accumulation, while most are not. Even for these people, however, pursuit of wealth and luxury cannot be the be-all and end-all, or they will become destructive to themselves and perhaps to others. I believe that individualism fails to address this tendency, or perhaps tries to ignore it somehow.
In the end, if you get rich, fine. Enjoy it, but dont get too attached to it. If you dont get rich, then as long as you have enough to eat and clothes to wear, and a fairly decent place to live, then where's the problem? People fail to understand such elementary things and that's the only real problem they have.
Mr. Wilson's remarks call to mind the first verses of the 23rd chapter of Solomon's Proverbs:
"When thou shalt sit to eat with a prince, consider diligently what is set before thy face. And put a knife to thy throat, if it be so that thou have thy soul in thy own power. Be not desirous of his meats, in which is the bread of deceit. Labour not to be rich: but set bounds to thy prudence. Lift not up thy eyes to riches which thou canst not have: because they shall make themselves wings like those of an eagle, and shall fly towards heaven."
Mr. Sanjay @13 "would you say that ascetism and rejection of all worldly wealth is itself a wrongful and misguided goal."
Yes, if it is not understood as a means or part of a holy rule to follow Christ more perfectly. Charity is the end of the Christian's life but most of us do not really learn it until near the end of life say from fifty years onward as Plato suggested, in the school of suffering. Today it is understood as a very sentimental thing while it is actually a very terrible and scary thing to face.
I think St. Paul said more than enough on the subject which applies to rich and poor alike.
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal....