‘What’s in it for me.’ It is a sentence that was uttered by someone at a Paddockhurst party last year. It was a casual remark almost, like it was self-evident that one asks the question in order to decide whether one supports something or not. I was disgusted and nodded half heartedly, not being interested in an argument for a change, and left quickly for a more wholesome conversation, which was easy to find.
The issue, although that doesn’t really matter, was fracking. This person couldn’t really see what was in it for him (or her) and was against it.
I have to think often of this sentence. Most often when I have had a little bit too much to eat, as the dutch comedian Wim Sonneveld would say. It is as a wolf hiding in the forest, coming out at night to haunt me.
Economics takes going after self interest for granted. Not so much at an individual level though – one has to have a pretty cynical view on individual behaviour for that, but as the most plausible outcome when the actions of masses of people are measured and weighed. On the cynical level altruism, for example, is a form of egotism. An altruistic person gets pleasure out of pleasing others. It is senseless blibble blabble.
I have been thinking about sins. The concept of sins is as old as the ability of mankind to reflect about its actions. In the christian world at first there were eight sins. I am quoting from the website ‘7 deadly sins’:
They were (according to the Greek monastic theoligian Evagrius, JvM), in order of increasing seriousness: gluttony, lust, avarice, sadness, anger, acedia, vainglory, and pride. Evagrius saw the escalating severity as representing increasing fixation with the self, with pride as the most egregious of the sins. Acedia (from the Greek “akedia,” or “not to care”) denoted “spiritual sloth.”
In the late 6th century, Pope Gregory the Great reduced the list to seven items, folding vainglory into pride, acedia into sadness, and adding envy. His ranking of the Sins’ seriousness was based on the degree from which they offended against love. It was, from most serious to least: pride, envy, anger, sadness, avarice, gluttony, and lust.
I get tremendous pleasure in thinking about sins. These are not crimes. All the sex-scandals in the catholic church do not deal with sins, they deal with crimes and should be treated as such. Crimes are also sins, but those are not the interesting ones. Most people live lives without committing crimes. At least they are not convicted of one. The crimes we commit (driving too fast, not paying taxes over someone we employ) are more like misdemeanors.
But we all commit sins. I really should speak for myself. I am guilty of every sin as described by Evagrius or Gregory, most of them on a daily basis, although days might go by that I do not envy someone, or that I am not sad.
It is very well possible to lead a decent, fruitful and socially beneficial life with committing all these, so called deadly sins, on a daily basis, I think (and hope). They are not really deadly, but it is a different thing to be proud of them, or not to realize that committing sins isn’t sinful.
Back to “what’s in it for me”. I suppose this would fall into the ‘avarice’ category, although it probably falls into different categories. It definitely could be seen as a pretty advanced stage of being ‘fixated with the self’ as Evagrius categorized his sins.
A society needs to agree about laws. They define what is punishable behaviour. But a society also needs agreement about what is unacceptable behaviour, even though that behaviour is not punishable. Within families, within schools, within companies and organizations, there needs to be a clear idea about what is desirable and undesirable behaviour.
In fact, that clear idea is there. If one takes all the adults in the world and would have them choose between two sorts of behaviour of which one is more sinful than the other, a clear majority will be able to decide which one the more sinful is.
We do agree, but we leave it implicit. It is not expressed clearly enough. Most religions take clear positions, but religions have their own problems. A change is needed, one in which schools and companies are braver in expressing what kind of behaviour they expect from teachers, students, managers and employees. The intention of behaviour need to become as important and as much appreciated as the results of behaviour. Good results without good intentions are no longer acceptable.
This is an ethical reawakening. We need it. Not ‘What’s in it for me’, but ‘what’s in it for us’. It will be beneficial for all.
Leave a Reply