The kind of behavior that is right for humans will depend on the kind of beings we humans are—on our human nature. As St. Thomas Aquinas proposed, if our nature were different, our duties would be different.
We humans are obligated by our nature to behave morally. Our rationality and ability to know are the two foundational elements of human nature that make us fit for the moral law. Within these two foundational properties of human nature lie three interconnected elements of our nature that make morality possible—what we want, what we value, and how we choose.
~ ~ ~
Solon: Good morning, Tyro. And what a beautiful morning it is.
Tyro: (a bit dejected) I’ve seen better.
Solon: Really? What is wrong with this day? What more could you want?
Tyro: I don’t think it’s a beautiful day. The sky is overcast and the forecast is calling for rain. I wanted to play golf today.
Solon: Why did you want to play golf?
Tyro: I like golf; it’s fun.
Solon: Why do you want to have fun?
Tyro: Because I feel good when I’m having fun.
Solon: Why do you like to feel good?
Tyro: Everyone likes to feel good.
Solon: Why does everyone like to feel good?
Tyro: Why are you asking “why” over and over again?
Solon: To find out what it is you really want. If you knew what you really want, maybe you would not mind so much if it rains today.
Tyro: Why didn’t you just say so? That’s easy; I really want what everyone wants; I want to be happy.
~ ~ ~
What We Want
Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values. — Ayn Rand
In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises wrote, “Human action is purposeful action.”
Long before the time of Mises, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica,
All things contained in a genus are derived from the principle of that genus. Now the end is the principle in human operations, as the Philosopher states (Phys. ii, 9). Therefore it belongs to man to do everything for an end.
Aquinas reserved the title “the Philosopher” for Aristotle alone, who wrote The Physics in 350 BCE, which Aquinas references. The idea that we humans act by choice and for purpose is truly ancient. But even if that idea were not ancient, we all believe it is true by our own experience and reason.
The end toward which all human action aims is happiness.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle called it “eudaimonia” ( from the Greek eu, “good” and daimōn, “spirit”), commonly translated as “happiness.” Professor Daniel Robinson proposes that a more apt rendering for the word might be “flourishing.” We humans agree, pretty much unanimously, that happiness or eudaimonia is what we all want, even though we do not all agree about how to achieve it.
If we ask people what they want in life, the final answer typically ends up being happiness. All the other things we want are means to the end of happiness, not ends in themselves, just as Aristotle said. All that we do in life, all that we want in life, all that we hope for in life—all are only means to an end— to be eudaimon.
Like Aristotle, we all agree that wanting to be happy is fundamentally part of our human nature; we all want to flourish, thrive, be content, and succeed in life. If we asked people why they want to be happy, all we would get is puzzled looks, for we have reached the end of the line.
No explanation for wanting to be happy makes any sense to us, nor should it. Eudaimonia is the summum bonum, the greatest good for humans; wanting to be happy seems to be part of what it means to be human. Plato thought virtue is the summum bonum for humans, but Plato and Aristotle were not at odds, for neither thought we humans can achieve eudaimonia if we are not first virtuous.
But we cannot be virtuous if we are not first moral.
Being eudaimon does not mean having a continuous psychological state of joy and merriment, although joy and merriment are certainly welcome. People want to flourish, to thrive, to be good at living—all dimensions of eudaimonia. And as Aristotle also noted, people want to avoid misery, even though some suffering will likely be part of flourishing.
As Rabbi Abraham Heschel put it, the man who has not suffered—what does he know anyway? According to Aristotle, one becomes eudaimon by virtuous action in accord with reason. A necessary condition for being eudaimon is to be good at being human. Being good at being human requires being good at what is essentially human; namely, being rational.
~ ~ ~
Solon: Can you not be happy today without playing golf, Tyro?
Tyro: I can’t think of anything else that would make me happier today.
Solon: What if someone returned your stolen iPod. Would that not make you happy?
Tyro: Yes, that would make me happy, because my iPod was valuable; I’ve been upset ever since someone stole it.
Solon: Why do you say your iPod was valuable?
Tyro: It cost me a lot of money, money that I can’t afford to lose.
Solon: What if someone had given you the iPod instead of you spending your money to buy it?
Tyro: An iPod is valuable whether someone gives it to you or you buy it yourself.
Solon: Is it? What makes an iPod valuable?
Tyro: Well, it just is. Everyone wants one.
Solon: I do not want an iPod.
Tyro: Well, if you had one, you could sell it and buy something else. That proves that an iPod is valuable.
Solon: What if no one wanted to buy my hypothetical iPod?
Tyro: Someone would want to buy it.
Solon: Why?
Tyro: Because an iPod is valuable.
Solon: You seem to be going in circles, my friend. You just argued that an iPod is valuable because it is valuable. That, by the way, is called “begging the question.”
Tyro: Okay. I see what you mean. But do you really not want an iPod, Solon?
Solon: I can think of many other things I would rather possess or do. This beautiful day, for instance, brings me more happiness than an iPod ever could. After all, here I am sharing your company.
Tyro: So, this beautiful, rainy day is valuable?
Solon: No, the day itself has no value, just like an iPod is not itself valuable. What can be said correctly is that “I” value this day. No thing is valuable in and of itself. Not days, not iPods, certainly not money.
Tyro: Food has value in and of itself. Without food, we would die. We value food because we need food.
Solon: You may properly say that you value food because it helps you stay alive. You may even say that you “need” food to stay alive. But even those ideas do not mean food is intrinsically valuable. What if you did not want to stay alive?
Tyro: That’s crazy. Everyone wants to stay alive.
Solon: Do they? Even though most people want to stay alive at most times, sometimes people no longer value even life itself, in which case, they do not need food. I have known people who wanted to die.
Tyro: That’s an unhappy thought, for sure.
Solon: Yes, perhaps. But for some people in particular circumstances, life itself no longer makes them happy. For such people, food has no value. Even food cannot be an absolute need. Need is a contingent concept, contingent entirely on what a person values.
Tyro: (after a silence) I guess I see what you mean. If food is not itself valuable in and of itself, it’s hard to think of anything that is.
Solon: That is because no “thing” has value in and of itself. People confer value on things. Value is utterly subjective, depending entirely on each particular human’s mind.
Tyro: Well, people usually think food is valuable, don’t they?
Solon: Certainly, Tyro. Still, all people do not value food the same. Some people place much greater value on food than other people.
Tyro: I see what you mean. That’s what you mean when you define value as “psychic satisfaction that occurs in an individual human mind,” right?
Solon: Just so, Tyro. No mind, no value. Value always occurs in a unique, individual mind.
Tyro: Why do we value some things and not others?
Solon: I think you already know. Why did you want to play golf today?
Tyro: I get it. We value what makes us happy.
~ ~ ~
What We Value
A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true. — Socrates
What is moral and what is virtuous both depend on what humans value. Morality is founded rationally, not sentimentally, on all souls valuing all other souls as ontological equals. Virtue is founded on values that allow humans to achieve eudaimonia. Consequently, understanding what value is and what humans value is fundamental to understanding morality and virtue.
Eudaimonia is a psychological state of mind. How different people achieve eudaimonia depends entirely on what different people value. Individuals achieve eudaimonia in part by what economists call “consumption” of goods and services that particular individuals happen to value.
Strange as it may seem, the word “consumption” is a technical term in economics that includes an enormous variety of human actions; for example, engaging in activities (such as playing golf, eating food, listening to Mozart, going to the theatre, reading a poem, helping others, etc.); using objects (such as cars, computers, televisions, stereos, clothes, houses, etc.); possessing objects (such as paintings of Monet, jewelry, gold, land, antique furniture, etc.); experiencing reality (such as hearing crickets chirp in a glade, watching fireflies in a meadow at night, looking down from the rim of the Grand Canyon, walking across the Golden Gate, etc.).
For Tyro, playing golf is a means of achieving the ultimate end he desires. But some other person might find playing golf more like serious pain. Several aphorisms express the idea of the absolute individuality and subjectivity of value. “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” “One man’s meat is another man’s poison.” “One man gathers what another man spills.” “There’s no accounting for taste.”
Value always resides in a unique, individual, private human mind.
Value is not an intrinsic property of material objects, human activities, or even human qualities. No “thing” has intrinsic value in and of itself, even though we commonly speak as if things do have value. As Solon says, “no mind, no value.”
Most people value a broad range of qualities in themselves and in others; for example: affection, altruism, artistry, beauty, bravery, brilliance, caring, charm, compassion, dependability, discipline, devotion, empathy, enthusiasm, expertise, fidelity, friendliness, freedom, generosity, grace, gallantry, honesty, humility, humor, industry, ingenuity, integrity, kindness, love, loyalty, modesty, optimism, patience, persistence, pleasantness, resilience, saintliness, self-control, serenity, thrift, trustworthiness, understanding, valor, wisdom, and zeal.
But like objects and activities, none of these human qualities has intrinsic value in and of itself. Indeed, different persons place different value, if any at all, on each of the qualities listed above. We humans confer value on such qualities when we find them present in ourselves or others, just as we confer value on material objects. We value such human qualities, if we do, because they make us happy when we find them in ourselves or others.
Even though each human mind is independently the sole source of value, and even though each human mind confers value uniquely, nearly all people seem to hold several core values.
Most people value life itself, self determination, freedom, true friendship, and the happiness of other people we care about. Yet, even though most people share these core values, we don’t all agree on their relative importance.
Some individuals value staying alive so highly that they are willing to give up some amount of self determination and freedom in return for the possibility of greater personal safety.
Some individuals value true friendship so highly that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives to preserve the life of a true friend.
Some individuals value self determination and freedom so highly that they would rather perish than be enslaved.
As it happens, the core values that most people hold are frequently conflicting, requiring the sacrifice of some of one for more of another.
Value is psychic satisfaction that occurs in an individual mind.
Notice that value occurs in “a” human mind. Value is not and cannot be a social or collective phenomenon, notwithstanding all the language we hear that claims it is. Put as simply and directly as it can be put, the concept of “social value” is vacuous. For no social mind exists in which social value could occur.
I have a mind, which is a fact that I alone can know without doubt. I believe you have a mind, but I cannot experience your mind. “We” do not have a mind; we each have separate, unique, private, individual minds. Why dilate on such an obvious point? Because the mistaken, misleading notion of “social value” is so pervasive in our language.
Perhaps people who use the term “social value” do so in an attempt to make what they themselves value sound important, imperative, and universal.
Politicians of all stripes engage in utter nonsense and meaningless jabber when they use expressions like “the common good,” “our national interest,” “the good of the nation,” “Americans believe,” “our human needs,” and countless other phrases based on collective nouns. Collectives don’t value anything. Only the individuals who comprise a collective can value, and they do so individually, not socially.
The use of collective nouns in political argument is a powerful rhetorical device, to be sure. Using collective nouns as if they were individuals makes it sound like we all value the same things and to the same degree. We do not. “We” do not value anything. “I” value many things. “You” value many things.
You and I may both value the same things, and even to something like the same degree—sometimes. Still, “we” cannot value anything. That idea is worth repeating.
Value is everywhere and always an individual phenomenon that occurs in an individual mind.
The only sense in which the idea of social value could be meaningful is if all persons in a society agreed unanimously about the value of something, and agreed unanimously to the same degree. And even in that highly unlikely case, we each have an individual, unique, private valuation, not a social valuation. We are hard pressed to identify any object, action, or human quality that even just two persons both value exactly the same, never mind all the individuals who comprise a society.
Yet, it is fair to say that individuals sometimes value objects, actions, or human qualities “in a social context.” Voting is an example of people valuing and choosing something in a social context. But unless the outcome of voting is unanimous, the outcome can hardly be called a “social choice,” even though it can be called a choice reached in a “social context.”
Some may think the distinction between “social choice” and “choosing in a social context” is little more than a trivial distinction. Not so; the distinction is vitally important, if we want to flourish together in a society. Political institutions and conventions, such as voting and majority rule, do not determine or reveal social value. The term “social value” is a great deceiver
How We Choose
… every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. — Aristotle
~ ~ ~
Solon: Can you think of nothing you would rather do today than play golf, Tyro?
Tyro: Today is Saturday; I am not in school; I have already finished my homework. No, I can’t think of a single thing that would make me happier than playing golf today, if it doesn’t rain.
Solon: You could play golf in the rain, if you choose.
Tyro: Playing golf in the rain is not much fun. Anyway, if it rains too much, the golf course will not be open. I would have no choice, in that case.
Solon: What if it does rain hard today? What will you choose then?
Tyro: I might like to go to a movie, but not as much as I would like playing golf. But if it rains, we could go to a movie. Would you like to go?
Solon: Maybe. So, if you can choose between playing golf and going to a movie, you will choose to play golf because you place greater value on golfing today than you place on watching a movie?
Tyro: Yes, definitely. If it’s not raining later today, I choose golf.
Solon: Some people will choose to go see a movie today even if it does not rain. Why, do you suppose that is?
Tyro: Probably because some people don’t like playing golf.
Solon: I like playing golf, but I also like watching good movies. If it does not rain today, I might still prefer going to see a movie.
Tyro: If you do choose a movie, that would mean you value going to a movie more than you value playing golf today, right?
Solon: Just so, Tyro. I, like every other human at all times, choose actions I believe will give me the greatest value. I do so because achieving the greatest value brings me my greatest happiness. I believe you said one of your teachers called that the “Fundamental Hypothesis of Economics.”
~ ~ ~
People choose. When choice is possible and imminent, which requires at a minimum two or more feasible and mutually exclusive actions, people choose by comparing their alternatives and deciding which alternative they believe will yield them the greatest value, the greatest contribution toward achieving eudaimonia. Which is to say, people choose in accord with the Fundamental Hypothesis of Economics.
The FHE is a statement about human nature. Experience and reason suggest strongly that the FHE is a true statement about human nature. Of course, readers must make their own evaluations of the FHE. Whether the FHE is true or not has important implications for understanding human nature, and therefore for understanding what is moral and understanding why some people sometimes behave immorally.
~ ~ ~
Tyro: The FHE seems to say that people are selfish. Do you think that people are by their very nature selfish?
Solon: What do you mean by “selfish,” Tyro?
Tyro: Everyone knows what “selfish” means.
Solon: Since everyone knows, then you know, too. Tell me what “selfish” means.
Tyro: Selfish means caring about what you yourself want and not caring about what anyone else wants.
Solon: Do you care about what anyone else wants?
Tyro: Of course; I’m not selfish.
Solon: Why do you care what someone else wants?
Tyro: Because I don’t want to be selfish.
Solon: Why do you not want to be selfish?
Tyro: Because we should care about other people.
Solon: Why?
Tyro: (after some thought) If I didn’t care about other people I would be selfish, and that’s bad.
Solon: Why is it bad not to care about what other people want?
Tyro: Because that would be selfish.
Solon: Tyro, you seem to be going around in a circle again. You said that being selfish is not caring about what other people want. Then you said we should care about what other people want, because not caring is bad, and that it is bad because not caring for other people is selfish. Do you see that you are begging the question about why selfishness is bad?
Tyro: (looking less than happy) Yes. But I have always been taught that not caring about what other people want is selfish, and that being selfish is bad.
Solon: You no doubt have been taught that being selfish is bad; but why would it be bad to want your own happiness?
Tyro: It cannot be bad to want happiness for ourselves. But we should also want happiness for others, shouldn’t we?
Solon: We each want to be happy by our very nature. But why do we care about the happiness of others?
Tyro: I care about the happiness of others because it makes me feel bad if I don’t and it makes me feel good when I do.
Solon: Does that not mean that you care about the happiness of other people because it brings happiness to you?
Tyro: Yes.
Solon: Is that not selfish?
Tyro: I think you are trying to trick me.
Solon: No, Tyro. I am trying to see if you can give meaning to the word “selfish” that does not make every choice anyone ever makes a selfish choice.
Tyro: If the FHE is correct—if we all always choose those actions that yield the greatest value to us—then it would seem that we always choose selfishly.
Solon: Just so, Tyro. But “selfish” is not a word that I would use. I think the FHE is correct. The FHE is a statement about human nature that I am persuaded is true. What do you think?
Tyro: The FHE seems to be true about most of my own choices, but sometimes I am altruistic, too.
Solon: What does it mean to be “altruistic”?
Tyro: Altruism means caring about the welfare and happiness of others over and above caring about one’s own welfare and happiness.
Solon: Why should people care about the welfare and happiness of others over and above one’s own? Please do not say “because it is good to care about the welfare and happiness of others.”
Tyro: Yes, yes, I know; that would beg the question. I can see that I’m running into the same problem with altruism that I ran into with selfishness. The statements “selfishness is bad,” and “altruism is good” are both opinions. They are both statements about what someone values or what someone should value.
Solon: Excellent, Tyro! Now, let us cut to the chase, as they say. Why does anyone value anything, whether the thing is an object, an action, or even a human quality?
Tyro: Because the thing generates happiness in the mind of the person doing the valuing.
Solon: You never cease to amaze me, Tyro! You are correct. Now what of selfishness and altruism?
Tyro: If I give a homeless man money, I do so because it makes me happy. So, I suppose someone could say that I am altruistic because I am selfish. How odd, though, to call altruistic behavior selfish.
Solon: I prefer not to call people or their behaviors selfish or altruistic, Tyro. I cannot give meaning to either term that distinguishes the behavior of one human from another. I think the Fundamental Hypothesis of Economics is correct. I think that all people choose those actions that they believe will bring them the greatest happiness. That seems to me to be the nature of humans.
Tyro: So, people are selfish by nature? Somehow that seems so tawdry and base. Is that really human nature?
Solon: Tyro, you seem to be trapped by your words. Why do you say interest in one’s own happiness is tawdry and base? Suppose people were not self interested. Suppose people did not care about their own happiness. Can you even imagine such a world? Let us try. Let us visit Threesville, as it would be if people were interested only in the well being and happiness of others above their own well being and happiness.
~ ~ ~
Annie: Hi Bobby. Lovely day today. I’m here to do whatever will make you happy.
Bobby: Yes, it is a fine day, but no, no; the question is what can I do for you?
Annie: Wouldn’t you like me to hoe your corn?
Bobby: No, I will hoe the corn. The corn is not mine, of course. The corn is for you and Callie, not for me. I will take only as much corn as needed to keep me alive.
Annie: I would never be so selfish, Bobby. You and Callie shall have most of the corn, not me. I’ll take only a small amount to stay alive.
Bobby: (a little frustrated) Perhaps Callie will want most of the corn. In any case, I will hoe the corn.
Annie: I can’t let you do that Bobby. The reason I’m here is to help others.
Callie: Hi Annie; hi Bobby. I’m a bit hungry and would like to buy some of your corn Bobby. What is the price. I have eggs today. I would like a bushel of corn. How many eggs will you require?
Bobby: I will trade you a bushel of corn for one dozen eggs; no wait! Let’s say only eight eggs.
Callie: That’s ridiculous, Bobby. Your price is way too low; you must accept at least two dozen eggs for a bushel of corn.
Bobby: You insult me, Callie. On second thought, I will trade a bushel of corn to you for just six eggs.
Callie: (in a bit of a huff) Fine! I don’t think it’s right, but here are your six eggs. Incidentally, I’m taking no more than half a bushel of corn for them. That will mean I can’t make as much corn bread, of course, but I don’t mind. I’m here to serve others. I will make do with half the corn bread I had in mind.
~ ~ ~
Tyro: That’s just silly.
Solon: You are right, Tyro. The very idea of people not being interested in their own happiness is unimaginably silly.
Tyro: (after a longish silence) If we always make choices that bring us the greatest happiness, why do so many people say that self interest is bad and that placing the welfare of others above one’s own welfare is good?
Solon: I suppose that some people say it just because it is what they were taught. Perhaps we are taught that selfishness is bad and altruism is good because if we believe it, that belief gives some people power over us to get what they themselves value. That motive has certainly been a factor throughout the history of nation-states and religious organizations.
Tyro: What do you mean?
Solon: Think Threesville, Tyro. If Annie tells Callie that she is behaving selfishly, Annie evidently wants Callie to behave differently. The different behavior that Annie wants will bring Annie happiness at Callie’s expense.
Tyro: So, humans by nature are selfish? We should just get used to it?
Solon: You are persistent in clinging to that word, Tyro. As I said, I do not use the word “selfish.” You can use the word if you like, but it seems that all you will really be saying if you do use the word is that humans are human.
~ ~ ~
Choice requires at least contemplation of action, if not action itself. When people contemplate any particular action, taking no action always becomes at once an alternative, thereby constituting the necessary second feasible alternative required for any choice whatsoever.
More frequently, though, taking no action whatsoever is a third alternative among two or more feasible alternatives that require overt action. For example, I may contemplate eating an egg, eating a banana, or eating nothing at all. Consequently, once I have entertained the possibility of feasible action, I will choose, even if I take no overt action.
Most people, whether they are particularly religious people or not, believe, as did René Descartes and Thomas Reid, that humans are something more than matter and energy. Some prefer to call that part of humans that is not matter and energy “mind,” while others prefer to call it “soul.”
The notion that humans comprise both body and soul (or mind, if you prefer) is perhaps the most famous of all philosophical dualisms. Most people are persuaded that they do indeed have the power to choose (a.k.a., free will), regardless of whether they attribute that power to mind or to soul.
Humans have a nature, notwithstanding the ideas of Jean-Paul Sartre, who argued that we humans are free to choose our own essence, and are therefore “condemned to be free.” Sartre is correct about choice; we are free to choose, but we choose for an overarching reason—to achieve eudaimonia.
We are not automatons, nor do we behave randomly; we humans choose our behavior, even though we choose for reasons. And of course, willful choice, or at least believing ourselves to be capable of willful choice, is a necessary condition for our ability to behave morally.
Understanding how people choose helps us understand why people sometimes behave immorally. Immoral behavior is a choice. If the FHE is correct, then people who behave immorally must believe that their immoral behavior will bring them greater value (and therefore happiness) than behaving morally would.
Plato thought that if people knew what is good for them, they would do it. Perhaps Plato was right. Perhaps people who behave immorally do so due to ignorance. Perhaps they simply do not know that in the end, immoral behavior will not contribute to their happiness.