Skip to main content

Is virtuous self-interest possible?

I'm in Melbourne, at the Religion in the Public Square colloquium. Just finished our first day. Dr. Scott Rae from Biola University is the keynote speaker. He's speaking on business ethics.

One thing that provoked my interest today is: is virtuous self-interest possible?

Virtuous self-interest permits Christian business ethics. The purpose of business is profit - that is, self-interest. The point of going into business is to make more return (money!) than expenses. If you don't have a profit motive, you're not in business; you're a charity.

The justification for virtuous self-interest goes like this: Self-interest is not the same as greed. Greed is the insatiable desire for more. Self-interest is the desire to improve yourself.

You can be greedily self-interested - you can want to improve yourself, in an uncontrolled, unlimited way. If you are greedily self-interested, you will use and abuse people to get what you want, with no care for them.

Or, you can be virtuously self-interested: your desire to improve yourself is controlled, guided and limited by principles like honesty, truthfulness, fairness, respect, and so on. If you care virtuously self-interested, you won't use and abuse people to get what you want. On the contrary, you'll look after them. You'll make sure you give them a fair return (a "fair price") for whatever they've given you; you'll keep your promises to them, even if you don't have to; and so on.

You can see how virtuous self-interest permits Christian business ethics. If virtuous self-interest exists, then a Christian should demonstrate Christian character in their business, while also making profit.

My question is: is this possible? Does it make sense? Or is it just playing with words, so as to baptise greed under the phrase "virtuous self-interest"?

Thoughts, please.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Kamal I am nervous ... not so much about self-interest (the Bible testifies to valid self-interests), but to your use of virtue. Virtues are fine as statements of aim, but not so much as self-descriptions, because the beneficiory of the particular virtues you listed are others. As a result, I think what you are calling 'virtuous self interst' could more simply be called 'sharing'. Business as a participation in an system of organised sharing -- now there's a thought. Have a look at O'Donovan's comments on the economy in 'ways of Judgment'. - ajc
Chris said…
I wonder if you can put it like this ...

There's self-interest (SI) as a primary or a secondary value.

If SI is primary, anything goes. If it's secondary, then SI will be constrained (by love, ethical values, whatever other commitments you have).

IOW, virtuous SI would equal 'a person of virtue practising business'. Greedy SI would equal 'a self interested person practising SI in the sphere of money'.

Possible, or no?

Chris Little

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...