HUU Sermon Archives

The Invisible Heart

Deb Stevens Fitzgerald
Date: April 10, 2005

Why get interested in this?

Remember the 1987 movie “Wall Street”? That line, now etched into our collective memory, uttered by Kirk Douglas’s character, Gordon Gecko: “greed is good”? How about “Show me the money!!!” from the 1996 film Jerry Maguire?

Have you noticed the shift in cultural sensibility, away from the American citizen towards American consumer? A turning from the common "we" into a collection of private "me's"? (see newspaper quote)

All that has gotten me interested in the ideas of sacrifice, gain, and altruism. I’m an economist, and I’ll try not to play one here at the podium. But let’s start out by picking some background on these issues before going too much further.

The modern capitalist system came of age in the century from 1750 to 1850 as a result of two types of revolutions.

The first was a political revolution: the triumph of liberalism (yes, the L word), particularly the in the view that government should be limited in its function to the protection of individual rights—including property rights.

The second revolution was about economics, and counts as the beginning of our understanding about economic systems in today’s sense of the word, culminating in Adam Smith's in Wealth of Nations and his idea of the Invisible Hand.

Smith was somewhat of a paradox – a deeply religious mathematician. He believed that competitive markets could alter the selfish desires of individuals into outcomes that served society as a whole, that individuals try to maximize their own good (and become wealthier), and by doing so, through trade and entrepreneurship, society as a whole will be better off. Even if your motives are purely self-seeking, the market will straighten it out. You will have to service others in order to enrich yourself. The invisible hand will make your actions virtuous even if you are not.

The political revolution and doctrine of individual rights came with a spirit of moral idealism. It was the liberation of man from tyranny, the recognition that the rights of individual, that whatever his station in society, is an end unto itself.

But the economic revolution was couched in morally ambiguous terms: any desire for wealth was contrary to the Christian injunction against selfishness and avarice. The early advocates of Smith’s Invisible Hand were aware that they were asserting a moral paradox—the paradox that personal selfishness could produce public benefits.

Critics of the market have always capitalized on these doubts about its morality. Many claim that capitalism breeds selfishness, exploitation, alienation, and injustice. This same belief produced the welfare state, which redistributes income through government programs in the name of social justice.

There is no mystery about where the moral antipathy toward the market comes from. It arises from the ethics of altruism, which is deeply rooted in Western culture, as indeed in most cultures. By the standards of altruism, the pursuit of self-interest is at best a neutral act, outside the realm of morality, and at worst a sin.... So. What exactly does the term "altruism" mean?

Altruism and Justice

Let us begin by noting that the basis for altruism takes two different forms, sometime called welfarism and egalitarianism. (the term welfare (as in the welfare state) is used here in the sense the term originally surfaced, in Britain after WWI, as a positive alternative to the warfare state).

First, according to welfarism, people have a right to certain necessities of life, including minimum levels of food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, and so on. It is the responsibility of society to ensure that all members have access to these necessities. Capitalism does not guarantee these essentials to everyone. Thus, argue the welfarists, capitalism fails to satisfy its moral responsibility, and so must be modified through state action to provide such goods to people who cannot obtain them by their own efforts. It’s a matter of RIGHTS.

According to egalitarianism, the wealth produced by a society must be distributed fairly. It is unjust for some people to earn fifteen, or fifty, or a hundred times as much income as others. But laissez-faire capitalism not only permits but encourages these disparities in income and wealth, and is therefore unjust. The goal of egalitarianism is to reduce this difference; greater equality is always regarded as a gain in equity. It’s a matter of JUSTICE.

Now, the welfarist demands that people have access to a certain minimum standard of living. As long as this floor or "safety net" exists, it does not matter how much money anyone else has, or how great the differences are between rich and poor. So welfarists are primarily interested in programs that benefit people who are below a certain level of poverty, or who are sick, out of work, or deprived in some other way.

Welfare rights are conceived as rights to possess and enjoy certain goods, regardless of one's actions; they are rights to have the goods provided by others if one cannot earn them oneself. Accordingly, these rights impose obligations on others. If you have a right to food, someone has an obligation to grow it. If you cannot pay for it, someone has an obligation to buy it for you. The claim does not depend on your personal relationship to the him/her, or their choice to help you, or their evaluation of you as worthy of help. It is an obligation arising from the sheer fact of need.

Egalitarians, on the other hand, are concerned with relative well-being. Egalitarians will say that they prefer the a society in which wealth is more evenly distributed, even if its overall standard of living is lower. Thus egalitarians tend to favor government measures such as progressive taxation, which aim to redistribute wealth across the entire income scale, not merely at the bottom. They also tend to support the nationalization of goods such as education and medicine, taking them off the market entirely and making them available to everyone more or less equally. Egalitarians recognize that strict leveling would have a disastrous effect on production. They understand that not everyone contributes equally to the wealth of a society. To some extent, therefore, people must be rewarded in accordance with their productive ability, as an incentive to put forth the efforts they are capable of. But any such differences must be limited to those which are necessary for the public good.

A Popular Alternative

This alternative is developed by Ayn Rand, with Alan Greenspan (chair of the Fed) as the most well-known adherent (at least in my line of work!). It is an individualist ethics, which defends the moral right to pursue one's self-interest.

Rand's social ethics rests on two basic principles, a principle of rights and a principle of justice.

The principle of rights says that we must deal with others peaceably, by voluntary exchange, without initiating the use of force against them. In this way we can live independently, on the basis of our own productive efforts. A person who attempts to live by controlling others is a parasite. Within an organized society we must respect the rights of others if we wish our own rights to be respected.

The principle of justice is what Rand calls the trader principle: living by trade, offering value for value, neither seeking nor granting the unearned. An honorable person does not offer his needs as a claim on others; he offers value as the basis of any relationship. Nor does he accept an unchosen obligation to serve the needs of others. No one who values his own life can accept an open-ended responsibility to be his brother's keeper, nor would an independent person desire to be kept. The principle of trade, Rand observes, is the only basis on which humans can deal with each other as independent equals.

In a capitalist society, food, shelter, clothing, books, and medicine do not grow on trees; they must be produced. As in any society, men are constrained by the limits of their individual ability. But the only constraint that capitalism imposes is the requirement that those who wish the services of others must offer value in return. No one may use the government to take what others have produced.

Now, what about someone who is poor, disabled, or otherwise unable to support himself? Rand would say that is a valid question to ask, as long as it is not the first question we ask about a social system. Yes, says Jesus, "Blessed are the poor in spirit,"; "blessed are the meek." And the Christian and welfarists ethics set the standard by which to evaluate a society as the way it treats its least productive members. But Randian objectivists believe that there are no grounds for holding the poor or the meek in any special esteem, or regarding their needs as primary. If we had to choose between a collectivist society in which no one is free but no one is hungry, and an individualist society in which everyone is free but a few people starve, an objectivist would argue that the second society, the free one, is morally preferable. No one can claim a right to make others serve him involuntarily, even if his own life depends on it.

As for those who simply cannot work, free societies have always provided numerous forms of private aid and philanthropy outside the market: charitable organizations, benevolent societies, and the like. Aid and philanthropy is not a duty, nor do the recipients have a right to it. Randians believe that altruists regard generosity as a virtue based on the assumption that there is something sinful or suspicious about being able, successful, productive, wealthy. A Randian regards those same traits as virtues, and sees generosity as an expression of pride in them.

What does all this have to do with us and the topic of the morning?

Back to Adam Smith and those markets for a moment.

I claim that reliance on the Randian-based individualist ethic and the belief in the invisible hand are on the rise today, that the encouragement for individuals to pursue their own self interests has steadily expanded, sometimes (maybe even often) at the expense of others.

But let’s note that during his time, Adam Smith anticipated the problem we see today, that the role that competitive markets play in our lives might steadily expanded. But Smith didn’t take it too seriously. Smith was profoundly religious, and saw the "invisible hand" as the mechanism by which a benevolent God administered a universe in which human happiness was maximized. He made it clear in his writings that a considerable structure was required in society before the invisible hand mechanism could work efficiently. He thought that property rights must be strong, and there must be widespread adherence to moral norms, such as prohibitions against theft and misrepresentation. He thought that love of family, duty to others, loyalty to country were all hallmarks of an advanced civilization and would prevail. In his book “Theory of Moral Sentiments’ he wrote about fundamental principals of human nature, which he called moral sentiments, saying that people are fundamentally unselfish at heart. They make other people’s interest their own. Smith was extraordinarily confident of human benevolence, so much so he never really questioned where it came from, or whether it would change over time.

So, fast forward to today.

In market economies it can feel like everything is for sale, everything has a price tag, and the only “real” way we have to value anything is by its monetary value. It’s beginning to seem like the American consumer is the newer more efficient form of the American citizen. The citizen who values and votes with her dollars rather than her ballots. Now, of course, money serves important functions in an economy; a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a standard of value.

But dollars don't deliberate. They don't seek common ground; they don’t empathy and imagination. As education consumers in Harrisonburg or Staunton, we can choose the "best schools" for our children, but as citizens we need public schools that help make us all public citizens. As consumers in Broadway or Luray, we can choose among hundreds of automobile models, but only as citizens can we make the choices that don’t harm the environment or that create a public transportation system serving all.

Today, Adam Smith’s Invisible hand is actually pretty visible—we record and count millions of market transactions every day. What’s not so visible is how these transactions shape human motivations, choices and the activities of what we might call the invisible heart.

Engaging in activities that don’t improve the bottom line is still important in this and every other society. Call these activities caring labor, measure by the time and effort that people spend in taking care of each other. It’s usually done on a person-to-person basis, in relationships where people generally call each other by their first names, for reasons that include affection and respect. Sometimes this work is compensated; sometimes it is not- economists call this “non-market” labor, work that is difficult to put a price on. Caring labor affects the emotional wellbeing of people. If someone trims my shrubs poorly, I’m not affected emotionally. But when the person who cares for my mom or teaches my son does a poor job, it’s a much different story.

Caring labor is often motivated as much by the paycheck as by affection and love; day care workers, home health care workers, teachers, and nurses frequently develop loving personal relationships with the people they take care of.

Now, women have traditionally supplied most of the caring labor in communities – paid and unpaid. For centuries, denying women the right to pursue their own interest dramatically lowered the cost of providing caring labor in a society.

But increasingly, in a globalizing economy we expect that both women and men should be part of the paid labor market. Yet, when both men and women are working long hours in paid employment, caring labor, which has historically been provided by women, suffers.

Let me put on my economist hat again for a moment: As career opportunities for women have expanded (with huge positive consequences), the price of caring labor has increased, with three negative effects:

1. more people can’t afford it (esp. elderly and children)
2. pressure rises to cut costs, which reduces the quality of care
3. caring for people who can’t pay the going rate begins to seem impractical, even odd

So what do we do? The Invisible Hand is about achievement. The Invisible Heart is about care for others. The hand and heart are interdependent, but are also in conflict. How to balance?

Well, it’s pretty obvious that we can’t rely on God, nature, the family or Super mom to provide the care. So, as an alternative, consider the following:

1. Reject the claim that women should be more altruistic than men, either in the home or out in the world. Assigning women the primary responsibility for the care of others does more than let men of the hook... it separates care from power, and therefore reduces the overall level of social and economic support for caring work.

2. Defend real family values against the sometimes corrosive effect of self-interest. Everyone stands to gain from strengthening the values of love, obligation and reciprocity. These values create an environment tin which individual pursuit of self-interest can lead to health outcomes.

3. Aim for kinder and wiser forms of economic development—calling attention to things that money can’t buy doesn’t mean we ignore those things it can. Let’s measure our success in lots of different ways… improving out capabilities, helping families to flourish, and mailing a healthy environment.

4. Develop and strengthen ways to decrease costs and rewarding the work of care. Care isn’t just a commodity… personal, face-2-face emotionally rich relationships are crucial to the deliver of so many socials services; child care, health care education, elder care. The service of care deserves recognition and reward.

Return to Sermon Archives Listing