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

Barfights in the public square

Everything in the public square seems to be increasingly conflicted. We seem to be operating with less and less shared values. It feels like we're less and less sure of what holds us together as a 'society.' A retreat into 'tribes' both drives this social fragmentation and is a result of it.  Post-modern scepticism towards metanarratives, which has now become culturally normal, significantly contributes to this fragmentation. If we no longer believe that objective truth, independent of our individual or tribal perspectives, exists, we will no longer believe we can appeal to that objective reality as common ground for debate. All we will do is exert power to magnify ourselves and punish those who disagree with us.  Because we believe that our cause is right, we will always think of ourselves as the victim of other people's aggression. Therefore, as Stephen McAlpine says, we will always think we're punching "up." We'll valorise ourselves as the ...

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...

Backlog of blogs

This is ridiculous. I have a backlog of some 30 half-baked blogs that I haven't published 'coz I feel I haven't thought them out well enough yet. I'd forgotten that blogs are supposed to be timely & personal, not necessarily scholalrly and precise. I thought I'd poll my readers (helloooo - is anyone out there...?). What would you prefer: occasional serious thought-through stuff, or regular ignorant ravings? Personally, I'd prefer regular thought-through comments... but my lack of posts in October demonstrates this is unrealistic.