Because I have written some posts critical of the current economic system I have been accused of envy and jealousy.
Like most people, I do not think of myself as being envious. However, I could be wrong about this. As such, I’ll take the time to consider this charge.
The charge of jealousy can be easily dismissed. Strictly speaking, jealousy is based on a fear of loss to another. Since I do not fear that I will lose what little I have to the rich, I am not jealous of them. However, the charge of envy requires a bit more work.
To start my rely, I need a definition of “envy.” Since I am a philosopher, I’ll consider two definitions put forth by better thinkers than I. Aristotle regarded envy “as the pain caused by the good fortune of others.” Kant, ever the wordy fellow, took it to be “a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another’s because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others.”
For the sake of brevity, I’ll go with Aristotle’s definition.
As far as I can tell, the good fortune of those who are rich does not cause me any pain. My writings also do not seem to show that I feel pain at such good fortune. In fact, years of athletic competition have taught me to think well of those who succeed through just means in difficult endeavors. I have run with (or rather far behind) elite athletes and do not feel any pain at their success. Rather, I am impressed with their talent and training and wish them well. I would, of course, like to be as good as they are and this does cause me some pain-namely the pain of working those hills and doing what I rather dislike: running round and round a track as fast as a I can.
As far as I can tell, I feel the same about the rich who have earned their wealth through fair means and in the face of challenges. Artists, writers, athletes, inventors, business folks and so on who have started from little (or nothing) and have earned top spots in the income brackets have not my envy, but my respect and admiration. Those who started with much, but have done great things also are not victims of any envy on my part. As with running, people who are out ahead of me via hard work and just efforts only motivate me.
I am, of course, critical of what strikes me as unfair, unjust, harmful, unethical or otherwise bad. To stick with the running analogy, if I criticize a runner who wins by using performance enhancing chemicals that are banned, I hardly seem to be envious. A better explanation, given my established character, is that I am against such cheating. Likewise, if I am critical of some aspect of the economic system that involves deceit, bribery, law breaking, or something that is harmful to the general good, then it seems most reasonable to attribute my motivation to being concerned about matters of ethics and justice rather than to accuse me of the base motivation of envy.
It might be wondered what would count as evidence of envy. Could I not be hiding bitter envy behind a cloak of alleged virtue?
That is, of course, a reasonable challenge. After all, who would admit to being motivated by envy, prejudice, greed or other such base emotions? Do we not all dress up our ugly emotions in finery so that the appear things of beauty and loveliness?
Of course we do. It would be an error to think otherwise. However, it is also an error to assume that what lies behind someone you disagree with is a base emotion as a motivation. To assume that I am critical of economic injustices because I am secretly enraged by my lack of a yacht, mansions, billions and bling would equally be an error. This would be on par with assuming that a person is against taxes because he is motivated merely by greed or that someone is pro-defense because she is motivated by a lust for bloodshed.
To fairly accuse someone of such a base motivation would require adequate evidence.
One rather decisive indicator of envy would require that I become rich. If my behavior and writing did not change, then it would seem odd to attribute what I do to envy. After all, I would have no reason to be envious then. Of course, as I am not devoted to becoming rich, this shall only happen by chance and thus is rather unlikely.
A less clear indicator is, of course, the content what I actually write and my behavior. One can go through it and look for signs that I feel pain at the good fortune of the rich. For example, if I merely lashed out at the rich without any foundation beyond my wanting their money and not having it, then that would provide some evidence. If, however, I were to present considered arguments and take into account opposing views, then it would be rather hard to take that as evidence of envy-unless, of course, any criticism of anything counts as envy.
As another example, if I were regularly engaged in activities that were clearly aimed at being rich or otherwise showed clear signs that what I truly valued was being rich, then there would be at least some foundation for a claim of envy. Since my chosen profession is professor of philosophy and my other interests are not money focused (running, gaming, writing unpaid blogs, and so on) it would seem odd to claim that I am money focused. While I am no genius, I did very well in college and was able to get a PhD from Ohio State. As such, I think it is reasonable to infer that I could have been a success in another far more lucrative field if money was, in fact, my consuming focus. As far as the stock charge that professors are only professor because they could not hack it outside of the ivory tower, the burden of proof is on those who make the charge. In any case, anyone who knows me well knows that I could hack it just fine.
Of course, what would also be needed is evidence that I feel pain at my lack of adequate success in money making endeavors and this pain is caused by the success of others (and not merely the pain of failure). That evidence also seems to be sorely lacking.
As such, I would infer that I am not envious of the rich. I am, however, critical of certain practices, laws and individuals. Naturally, I am open to evidence that I am deluding myself, that I am, in fact, full of repressed envy of the rich.
T. J. Babson says
March 14, 2011 at 10:09 amI don’t think you envy the rich, but I do think you are too hard on businessmen and capitalists.
It is the businessmen and capitalists that allow us to live in a rich country, which permits some of us to spend our energies thinking about philosophy, or science, or literature.
magus71 says
March 14, 2011 at 10:31 amExactly. No nation moves into an enlightened state without having a lot of money. Tribal life or toiling in the fields doesn’t lend itself to introspection or double-blind studies.
A J MacDonald Jr says
March 14, 2011 at 10:53 amAlthough you may not personally be envious of the rich, many supposed advocates of the poor are simply exploiting people’s propensities toward envy and greed. In fact, the whole sub-prime mortgage fraud scandal was brought about by the exploitation, by the banks, of two, powerful emotions (sins): greed and envy.
WTP says
March 14, 2011 at 12:20 pmWhile I didn’t accuse you of envy or jealousy, preening and self-awareness issues are another matter. Methinks he doth protest too much. Then again, perhaps I should change my perception.
On another note…”if I am critical of some aspect of the economic system that involves deceit, bribery, law breaking, or something that is harmful to the general good, then it seems most reasonable to attribute my motivation to being concerned about matters of ethics and justice rather than to accuse me of the base motivation of envy.”
Of course deceit, bribery, law breaking, and other activities that are harmful to the general good rarely apply to unions or others on the political left. And especially not, shudder, university professors.
Michael LaBossiere says
March 14, 2011 at 3:55 pmO’m not much for preening. I’ll leave that to the birds.
I never claimed that unions or professors never engage in deceit, law breaking and so on. Unions have often been linked to organized crime and suffer the same corruption problems as any other organization that is involved with power and money.
University professors generally have little opportunity to harm the general good on a significant scale. However, there are no doubt some exceptions.
WTP says
March 14, 2011 at 4:36 pmI never claimed that you claimed that unions or professors NEVER engage in deceit, etc. I said “rarely”. When criticized you seem to have little problem parsing sentences looking for any opportunity to claim the criticisms are based on misrepresentations of what you said. Yet, when the shoe is on the other foot, you’re not so enthusiastic in your analysis.
I would say that university professors have tremendous opportunities to harm the general good. See the Duke “rape” case, Ward Churchill, and every professor who works under the guise of being open minded whilst actually being quite biased.
magus71 says
March 15, 2011 at 12:55 amUniveristy professors were the vanguard of Soviet Active Measures campaigns in the United States. Next was Hollywood. To this day, it shows.
A guy I work with in my office has a PHD in history, specializing in war and counter-insurgency. He’ll tell you the same thing.
McCarthy was right; he just happened to drink a lot.
There is something that irritates you about other people doing well, in monetary and other ways. It may just be your competative nature.
Michael LaBossiere says
March 16, 2011 at 12:07 pmWhile I have only been a professor since 1993, I have not noticed an abundance of Marxists among my colleagues. I do know of one fellow at FSU who was a Marxist and I did know one professor at OSU who had some socialist leanings. My advisors’ best quote about Marxism was this: “Analytical Marxism? That is doubly vacuous.”
I do recall that it was in vogue among certain circles to spout Marxist views without really understanding Marxist theory, but most folks I know have been critical of Marxism and the rather silly theories that people have created from misreading Marx.
I suspect that the number of Marxists has been greatly exaggerated, perhaps because of a very broad view of what counts as being a Marxist.
Of course, I have little experience with the Left Coast schools-maybe they are loaded with Marxists.
WTP says
March 16, 2011 at 12:52 pm[Scene: A New York apartment. Someone knocks on the door.]
Woman: [not opening the door] Yes?
Voice: (mumbling) Mrs. Arlsburgerhhh?
Woman: What?
Voice: (mumbling) Mrs. Johannesburrrr?
Woman: Who is it?
Voice: [pause] Flowers.
Woman: Flowers for whom?
Voice: [long pause] Plumber, ma’am.
Woman: I don’t need a plumber. You’re that clever shark, aren’t you?
Voice: [pause] Candygram.
Woman: Candygram, my foot. You get out of here before I call the police. You’re the shark, and you know it.
Voice: Wait. I-I’m only a dolphin, ma’am.
Woman: A dolphin? Well…okay. [opens door]
[Huge latex and foam-rubber shark head lunges through open door, chomps down on woman’s head, and drags her out of the apartment, all while the Jaws attack music is playing.]
magus71 says
March 17, 2011 at 12:11 amWell, Marxism is passe amongst the University elites. It’s not called that anymore and they’ve changed their thinking a bit. But at the bottom of it is a definite anti-Americanism along the lines described by Orwell. In the end, it amounts to mere myopia, but the problem is the spawn of these myopic professors end up being even worse: 22 year olds with bachelor’s degrees who are convinced they know everything and that they can fix it all.
There ought to be a class called: “You don’t know nearly as much as you think you do. Shut up and drink your latte.”
Michael LaBossiere says
March 17, 2011 at 7:22 pmActually, most of the professors I know are either okay with America or pro-America. They do tend to be critical of certain things, but generally because they see those things as being harmful to the general good.
In my intro class, I cover Socrates bit about wisdom being the realization that one knows nothing. In my critical thinking class I emphasis the limits of our knowledge and the importance of critical thinking. Of course, when I was 22, I thought I knew everything-despite being able to quote Socrates. I don’t think it was my professors (who were quite good) but merely the arrogance of youth.
anonfrk says
March 16, 2011 at 2:35 pm“McCarthy was right; he just happened to drink a lot”
Yes. And Charlie Sheen is a decent guy. He just happens to be an egotistical, cocaine-addled, whore-monger.
Michael LaBossiere says
March 16, 2011 at 11:54 amI’m almost always careful in my analysis.
Sure, professors do have some opportunities to do harm. However, this does not seem to be a problem unique to professors nor a special problem for them. I do agree that one can find instances of particular professors doing harm. However, if one were to list the threats to the general good, I’m reasonable sure that university professors would not be high on that list.
This does not, of course, excuse any particular professor of wrong doing.
WTP says
March 16, 2011 at 12:12 pmI’m always careful in my analysis, too.
Sure, corporations and the wealthy do have some opportunities to do harm. However, this does not seem to be a problem unique to corporations or the wealthy nor a special problem for them. I do agree that one can find instances of particular corporations or the wealthy doing harm. However, if one were to list the threats to the general good, I’m reasonable sure that corportations or the wealthy would not be high on that list.
This does not, of course, excuse any particular corporation or wealty person of wrong doing.
anonfrk says
March 16, 2011 at 3:04 pmWould a threat to the financial stability of the world markets be considered a “threat to the national good”? Or a major oil spill or natural gas explosion that can be clearly identified as attributable to corporate neglect? Or the dumping of toxic waste into rivers? Or marketing and selling cigarettes despite their know health risks? Or developing and marketing drugs that internal memorandums clearly indicate were known to be unsafe before they were put on the market? How many more instances need I add to move corporations and the wealthy one step higher up on your list of “threats to the general good”?
There’s a book out there* (Censorship, Inc.: The Corporate Threat to Free Speech in the United States by Lawrence Soley) that provides numerous examples of ways corporations threaten our most important First Amendment right. That would be a major threat to the general good. . .
*$24.95 on Amazon. No way I’m buying that puppy. I’ll find it in the library.
Asur says
March 14, 2011 at 8:20 pm“…every professor who works under the guise of being open minded whilst actually being quite biased.”
Open mindedness and bias are not contradictory, oddly enough.
WTP says
March 16, 2011 at 3:08 pmAnyone else notice that fishy smell? It seemed to have gone away for a while, but now it’s back.
Asur says
March 16, 2011 at 3:18 pmI love you, too 😛
anonfrk says
March 16, 2011 at 3:27 pmPerhaps we can approach my questions from a different angle. You wrote, “. . . if one were to list the threats to the general good. . .I’m reasonable sure that corportations or the wealthy would not be high on that list.” Perhaps if you give us some concrete ideas of what’s higher on the list, we can then determine how far up the list your answers to my questions @ 3:04 would move corporations and the wealthy.
You’re “always careful in your analysis.” I’m just looking for answers so I can see if that’s true. If you consider that fishin’, tough nuts.
Hmm. I smell something, too; I know it’s not me. And it’s definitely not fish. 🙁
WTP says
March 17, 2011 at 1:43 pmIf it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, I will henceforth be treating it as I would a duck, regardless of its monicker.
frk says
March 17, 2011 at 2:38 pmThat IS one way of avoiding answering/deflecting a legitimate question. Not a particularly honorable way. But. . .WTF 🙂
frk says
March 17, 2011 at 5:23 pmI really enjoy being caught up in your mixed metaphor ‘phantasy’. But, alas, neither fish nor fowl am I.
Oh. I forgot to ask. How exactly do YOU treat a duck? Like this I suppose:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fuck%20a%20duck&defid=1145748
Michael LaBossiere says
March 16, 2011 at 6:20 pmYou can smell through the internet tubes?
WTP says
March 17, 2011 at 2:48 pmYou can if you’re not too obtuse.
frk says
March 17, 2011 at 3:44 pmOoo! Even an anagram of “tubes” with an extra “o”. 🙂 Cute. . .
Krishna says
March 25, 2011 at 1:56 amDear Professor, I don’t know the context. But in any worst conditions I don’t see the need of self justification so much. People will be critical any ways. Read the below anecdote.
An old man and a young boy were traveling through their village with their donkey. The boy rode on the donkey and the old man walked.
As they went along they passed some people who remarked it was a shame the old man was walking and the boy was riding.
The man and boy thought maybe the critics were right, so they changed positions.
Later, they passed some people that remarked, “What a shame, he makes that little boy walk.” They then decided they both would walk.
Soon they passed some more people who thought they were stupid to walk when they had a decent donkey to ride. So, they both rode the donkey.
Now they passed some people that shamed them by saying, “How awful to put such a load on a poor donkey.”
The boy and man said they were probably right, so they decided to carry the donkey.
As they crossed the bridge, they lost their grip on the animal and he fell into the river and drowned.
The moral of the story?
Always there will be people who’ll critize any thing. We can’t please every one.
Thank you
-Krishna