Exploitation

nyarlothothep

I've been thinking about why people who exploit others or wage war on countries/entire races are supported by followers who should know better. I think it can be attributed to limited resources and a vacuum of power.

For example say you have the greatest computer graphics artist of all time. Its 1972. He also happens to be a genius engineer and has built an extremely powerful computer, say a computer on a par with todays standards. He licences out his services to the Hollywood distributors and because hes the only one who can create these amazing special effects he gets a lot of money for it. He thinks to himself, I no longer feel like working and Im quite rich but I want my children to be rich and create a dynasty. Using the wealth he already has he decides to employ people and give them some of this wealth in return for their services. However since he controls the means of wealth distribution, because he got there first with few or no competitors, he can now dictate the terms of the employment contract. If he chooses the former he will not have dynasty. If he chooses the latter his family will continue to be wealthy forever. He chooses the latter as this appeals to his self interest. Those who wish to work for him do so because they have no resources of their own. In order to survive they must abide by the consequences of his choice. Hence exploitation.

I therefore ask if self interest is an inherent bias of human behaviour in situations which establish the genesis of exploitation, ie exploitation is the result of a desire to live comfortably in a world of limited resources where such an option exists.

davej

Philosophy Bites recently interviewed Hillel Steiner on this very topic.

davej

Black Swan

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I therefore ask if self interest is an inherent bias of human behaviour in situations which establish the genesis of exploitation, ie exploitation is the result of a desire to live comfortably in a world of limited resources where such an option exists.

Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations (1776) suggested that self-interest pursued in a laissez faire capitalistic system would result in the maximization of productivity, and that such increased productivity would benefit the economic well being of society. Consequently, the extraordinary wealth accumulated by the few self-interested captains of industry was justified, because the exploitation of the lesser paid workers gave those workers a higher standard of living as an end result.

Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged went a step further essentially suggesting that self-interest was not only key to happiness, but also survival of the individual and species. Individual freedom to pursue rational, productive inventions, followed by the exploitation of those inventions within an unregulated laissez faire capitalistic system was said to be fair and just, as were the financial gains that would reward those individual efforts. Individualistic self-interest was said to be of greatest value to the advancement of humankind, as opposed to August Comte's altruistic work for the social good.

In both these examples there was the assumption that self-interested driven productivity would ultimately benefit humankind. This becomes problematic when we consider the warnings made by former US General and President Eisenhower about the military-industrial complex; i.e., the few captains of this industry profit from the war, death, and destruction of the many. I would imagine that there are other examples where self-interest was not always in the best interests of society.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joe1919

Bernard Mandeville put forward a theory of 'vice as a necessary condition for economic prosperity' in the early 1700s.
................... A libertine, for example, is a vicious character, and yet his spending will employ tailors, servants, perfumers, cooks, and opportunist female and/or male prostitutes. These persons, in turn, will employ bakers, carpenters, and the like.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Mandeville