Paw-litics Redux: Humphrey on Self-Interest Versus Altruism

While playing with a stuffed sheep and red ball, Humphrey contemplated the dichotomy of self-interest versus altruism. Are people (and dogs) so motivated by self-interest that capitalism is the only viable socio-political structure?

Humphrey was rather astounded to learn that conservative NY Times op ed columnist David Brooks has arrived at the conclusion, based on a ton of research, that people are fundamentally not motivated by self-interest, which he describes in this May 2011 column.

This is consistent with un-conservative cultural critical, philosopher and occasional National Post contributor Mark Kingwell’s proclamations in The World We Want that, “Never before, I suspect, have no many people been so rich to so little purpose.” He cites a number of studies which point to the fact that, “The real trouble, of course, is that all this acquisition [of goods and money] does not seem to make us any happier.”

Rather, Humphrey reckons, human happiness comes from ethical behaviour and altruism. Humphrey agrees with Kingwell’s observation that many people chalk up problems to “a picture of the world itself as inevitably unbalanced or naturally unjust.” This is similar to the mentality that the poor are in their situation because (a) they didn’t make the right choices; and (b) life isn’t fair to some who do make the right choices. This, Humphrey and Kingwell, argue, is not part of the natural order – rather, it is part of a world/society we created. If everyone made the “right” choices, there is little room at the top. Somebody always has to be poor only because we set up the system that way.

Humphrey contemplates Kingwell’s big question: “How do we create the world we want, rather than a world that just happens to us?”

Perhaps a good start is a very large brick of aged parmesan, and some good discussion.