TL;DR: I once again become an amateur sociology theorist with some hot takes about “Machiavellian Deontology”

What DO we owe to each other?

In the last several weeks I have been thinking a lot about various aspects of Sociological theory. I think a lot of this is driven by the current state of the world around us collapsing. I have also been showing my kids the TV Show “The Good Place” to drive some discussions about Ethics and Moral Philosophy. It has lead me to a lot of questions and thoughts, some of which I will try to express here, regarding how people interact and should interact in society.

There have been a number of different philosophers way smarter than I am over the centuries who have tackled this topic. Every religion from the beginning of time, and probably before our knowledge of time begins, has something to say about good behaviors and how they should manifest in our daily lives. Durkheim’s evolving definition of Religion comes to mind here where, initially, he had claimed that a religion was a set of obligatory beliefs and the behaviors bound to them (which he found too prescriptive as a definition, but in many modern religions seems to hold true), and his ultimate definition that religions are unified belief systems related to the sacred that unite a community into a single moral “Church”. In essence, Religions exist specifically because they provide sets of rules dictating how we behave in relation to each other and the elements our “Church” consider sacred.

The problem with religions is that they rely on the authority imbued into that sacred to gain and retain their power. In truth humans, especially modern humans with a strong belief in Individualism, are loathe to accept higher authorities than the self. This can be seen reflected in the current trends to reject scientific analysis, the rise of “alternative facts”, and the growing Machiavellian tendency for people to justify abhorrent actions for a nebulous greater good.

Scanlon, Kant, and Machiavelli walk into a bar …

Scanlon, Kant, and Machiavelli walk into a bar. The Bartender says “What do you want?”

Scanlon says “To be bound by a set of fair and objectively moral rules.” Kant says “For the universe to accept the truths of society’s shared will.” Machiavelli scoffs ans says “You both want what is best for you, and to tell others how to give it to you. Give me Wine.”

Machiavelli had some terribly hot takes on what is acceptable in the behaviors of individuals and governments. Thomas Hobbes came in and took Machiavelli’s theories deeper and pointed out that humans will always act with selfish means to achieve selfish ends. Through the lens of these two darker philosophers one can find a utilitarian cynicism in moral contractualism and deontology. The only reason humans act with any sort of morals is because it benefits them; it only matters how broadly they view themselves as being benefited. Someone who feels supported and enfranchised by the society they live in will adopt a view that the greater good is to their benefit. Of course they would do what is best for the most people because it benefits them as well.

When people feel disenfranchised by their society, however, an entirely new set of problems arise. The concepts portrayed in the works of Scanlon, Kant, and all of the other deontological theorists are, arguably, only extant because of the privileges they had in their positions in society, and the relative wealth and growth of society in the last 300 years. We have seen scientific and economic progress come to benefit the masses as time has progressed since Machiavelli and Hobbes died. Food production methods improved, medicine improved, and then industrialization saw commodity goods and the distribution of goods to the masses. These same growth benefits were seen by Marx who thought that a post-agrarian, post-industrial society would inevitably have so much wealth (in terms of liquid wealth and commodity goods) that everyone would be able to focus on the communal good.

There was, in the eyes of these technological optimists, a growing body of evidence that what benefits everyone would, inevitably benefit every individual.

That … was a mistake.

The Disenfranchisement of Society

This worked for awhile; a good long while, even. Up until around the mid- to late-1800s everything seemed to be trucking along. More people were largely being benefited by academic, scientific, and intellectual advancements (in the global North, but that is a discussion I am wildly unqualified to start or have). Medicine was reaching the masses, food production and commodities reached more and more people who had growing liquid wealth to spend it, and it looked like the world was moving to something resembling a more egalitarian state. It is no coincidence, in my view here, that Kant, Marx, and many, if not most, of the other 18th, 19th, and 20th century philosophers trended toward the view of the world as moving toward an inevitable egalitarianism.

In their zeal for a better world, however, they discounted Machiavelli and Hobbes as being abject. Even today Machiavillian and Hobbesian are thrown around as insults to dismiss arguments and behaviors as something akin to immoral. Meanwhile, the growing bourgeoisie class would read “The Prince”, and “Leviathan” in Business college, with the field of modern economics actively studying the works to learn how to grow businesses and develop stronger advertising modalities. (Fun fact, I first read “The Prince” for a Web Marketing class at University!) The undesirable truth of the matter was that the selfishness and greed that Machiavelli and Hobbes noted in their works of philosophy were still very much present in people. Worse, it was being ignored for a belief in a greater altruism. Altruism can, and does, exist in humans. I firmly believe that. The belief that something will benefit the greater good, even to the detriment of the individual, can be seen in human beings chronicled throughout history and the modern day. We, as a species, clearly have evolved compassion and compassionate act. I think that we are only able to be in that state, however, when our other needs are fully met and allow us the flexibility to know that handling the pain of that sacrifice is something within our power to do. (Maslow and I would, inevitably, have had some fun conversations.)

On the other hand, in a society that since the middle 1800s has only lead to increasing wealth-based inequality, failure of science to meaningfully acknowledge works of note (Eunice Foote had things to say about the carbon-driven climate crises in 1856, for example) because they did not lead to profit, and a growing need for human power to run the machines of industrialization to drive profit for the growing bourgeoisie … there is a vested interest in making sure that some of everyone’s hierarchy of needs is left unmet. Someone who is afraid of where their next meal will come from, or how they will pay the rent for their house, is far more likely to tolerate abuse in the workplace than one who is secure in their environment.

We live in a time where the benefits to “everyone” do not actually benefite every individual. People are being asked to sacrifice for a society that has left them behind.

Machiavellian Deontology

So now we have an entirely new paradigm. One where everyone is expected to sacrifice, but only a few see the benefits of that sacrifice.

It is no longer altruism; the person being sacrificed for does not need the sacrifice, they want it. It is not fair to ask a starving person for their last morsel of food if you had a meal that was slightly smaller than you wanted. If the starving person were to give you their morsel that is not altruism. There is no concern for the welfare of the person who has eaten: There is a lack of concern for the self.

Another example of false altruism: if you are working for a business that pays you, and you give them more time or do more work to get a larger bonus. This is what I call Machiavellian Deontology. You are acting in a way that could be defined as altruistic, but (like the example above) there is no concern for the welfare of the institution that is the business. The concern is predominately on the benefit to the individual. This is no longer an act of classical deontology, but is a sort of selfish altruism that leads one to do something that detriments them only in the short term.

These two related problems can be distilled in:

  1. The greed of a growing wealthy class expects the lower classes to provide wealth for them
  2. The lower class is left chasing the dream of becoming a member of the wealthy class so they can be provided for

The outcomes of this are either cyclical, in that to become wealthy is to push someone out of the wealthy class, and thus creating another member of a lower class, thus perpetuating a cycle of self-destruction and moral decay; or they are self-defeating in that everyone becomes a member of the wealthy class, leaving no one to do the work that is providing for them, thus collapsing the entire system.

I hate discussing logically flawed systems because it always sounds logically flawed …

Our scientific, academic, and industrial progress did not, ultimately, lead to a prosperous and more equal society, as early predictions suggested. It lead to a growth of inequality abhorrently great because of the willingness of a small few to manipulate the system to their own ends and create cycles that detriment society and the greater good to their own gain.

Where do we go from here?

I am left with two questions, my initial question and a new one. What DO we owe to each other? and How do we get to a place where we are giving it to each other?

I think it would be the height of hubris to say I have valid answers, but I do have ideas.

In my view, we owe each other a respectful and fair disposition. We owe each other consistency and honesty. If we can be reliable in our actions and beliefs we can create strong bonds to other individuals that will eventually grow into sub-cultures, cultures, institutions, and dare I say, societies of their own someday. I think the quid pro quo of contractualism is problematic, and we owe each other kindness regardless of what is returned to us. I also understand and respect anyone who points out that my view is likely naive.

How we get there is a much harder question to answer. There is a class of people actively operating against the above point. A class of people who have read the works of Machiavelli and Hobbes as instruction manuals that teach them how to get ahead and leave everyone else behind. This class does not even respect the classical pseudo-altruistic philanthropy of their forebears who were well read and understood the outcomes of trampling on a society.

I am, given my own moral and ethical code, loathe to suggest violent uprising. I do not think that violence and violent acts are the best way to have discourse and affect meaningful change. The Glorious Revolution was, in my view, the height of humanity. Other peaceful revolutions have occurred in history as well: The Egyptian overthrow of British rule in the 1900s, The Anti-Communist takeover of Mongolia, the Peaceful Revolution of Germany in 1989. It does happen, and can happen, where revolutions without violence can bring about necessary change.

On the other hand, I am fully aware, in my reading of history, that these tend to be the exception and not the rule. If you were to ask the French, for instance, I think they would tell you with glee that “Guillotine” is a French word, and that the Liberté, Egalité, et Fraternité de La République were hard won.

In truth, I do not know how to solve this problem; which has me violating one of my own maxims in that I do not like posing problems without solutions. That said, I think this is a problem that will take generations to solve, and I can at least help define it … Which has to be at least half the battle. As someone, probably not Einstein, once said “if I had an hour to save the world, I would spend 55 minutes understanding the problem.”

I am alive in those 55 minutes … I can only hope to see the solution.

Further reading and referenced works