Collective Good More Valuable Than Self-Interested Pursuits

Americans place a pretty high value on individuality and privatization. Each person should decide what is good for himself and his family and pursue that good. These "freedoms" are obviously more important than aiming toward any sort of collective good. Am I the only one who finds that astonishingly selfish?

This dilemma emerged in the modern age -- when thinkers like Hobbes, Machiavelli and Adam Smith outlined their theories of government and economics, empowering man to consistently make self-interested choices.

Back in the day, and here I'm referring to dead Greek philosophers, statesmen were primarily responsible not for protecting liberties but rather for perceiving and working to achieve an overarching communal good -- one that was objective and universal.

What is the justification for valuing the private or the particular over the public and the general? But I should elaborate before I start sounding like the Borg or -- God forbid -- a Commie.

I'm not advocating a return to some stratified Platonic form of government, with a philosopher-king who knows best and the rest of us sitting dumbly in the cave. Nor am I saying that individuals shouldn't make their own decisions -- I'm still a believer in the Constitution's ideals. It's the modern attitude and the fruits of that attitude that I lament.

During the Enlightenment, political thought changed. Instead of trying to coax the common man to take a direct interest in the public good, statesmen were encouraged to make each man's self-interest coincide with what would be best for the community.

Basic social contract theory operates on an "if-you-don't-kill-me-I-won't-kill-you" philosophy. We accept the conditions of the contract to ensure our practical safety, and as a secondary effect, end up with a theoretically secure, law-abiding society.

Similarly, Smithian economics introduces the invisible hand: Profit-seeking individuals will engage in capitalist competition, and the free market will deliver liberty and justice for all. ... Isn't that a beautiful dream? An old saying holds that private vices make for public virtues. But shouldn't we be aiming at virtue to begin with? Does anyone care about virtue anymore, about what justice means?

Let me cite two examples. Many of you have probably heard of the "tragedy of the commons," involving a village with shared pastures. Each family can bring a certain number of cattle to graze there. Members of one family, thinking themselves especially bright, decides they'll sneak in a few extra cows -- no problem, right? Except that when every family thinks that way, overpopulation makes the grazing land useless. What is rational at the individual level is detrimental to the community.

And there's always the environment, the classic collective responsibility problem. All parties -- automobile manufacturers, lobbyists, politicians, suburban SUV owners -- act in self-interest, and Americans would be appalled if the right to pursue any of these activities were questioned. But, regardless of what Emperor Dubya might contend, most people recognize that global warming is a serious issue.

There are countless occasions when social or economic justice is not served because of our selfish ways, and in the columns to come I will address such issues.

Rousseau lamented that people were physicists, businessmen and lawyers but not citizens. The requirements of citizenry are great, especially in a nation with as much freedom, prosperity and potential as the United States. They include focusing on the good for all people, striving for justice and not acting in self-interest under the righteous guise of "rights."

These are ideas acquired through a liberal education in the traditional sense of the word. The role of the University should be to introduce and attune students to these ideas and virtues.

Reach Rachel Gurvich at gurvich@email.unc.edu.