Contradictory Road: Altruism vs. The Invisible Hand

al·tru·ism

noun

the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others

in·vis·i·ble hand

noun

(in the economics of Adam Smith) an unseen force or mechanism that guides individuals to unwittingly benefit society through the pursuit of their private interests.

An Unstoppable Force Meets An Immovable Object

A more fierce contradiction is difficult to imagine than the one that exists between altruism and the “invisible hand”. 

Altruism is viewed by many to be the most righteous behavior a human being can engage in.  An altruistic act is one by which an individual aids another individual or group without any expectation of reciprocation or thanks.  The altruistic act is purely unselfish in motivation or it cannot be defined as such.  This does not mean that a rewarded act of altruism ceases to be altruistic; it is the unselfish nature of the initial motivation that matters.

The “invisible hand” is a term credited to the father of economics, Adam Smith.  He proposed that government must leave the free market alone entirely.  According to Smith, individuals acting solely for their own benefit within a free money-market system would inadvertently benefit others and society as a whole; government interference only serves as a hindrance to prosperity.  The force guiding this phenomenon is referred to as an “invisible hand”, which can be thought of as “greed” so long as it is understood that the full psychology that powers the “invisible hand” is much more intricate than a single word can embody.

Side by side, “altruism” and the “invisible hand” stand in perfect opposition to each other.

One advocates selflessness to benefit humanity, and the other advocates selfishness to do the same job.

Somehow, our culture holds both of them as vital components of its philosophical ideology.  It is an unavoidable ethical train wreck.

How, as an American citizen, am I to know which ideal is appropriate for any given situation in my life?  When do I run with the “invisible hand” and seek only my own gain as an individual?  When do I put the needs of others before my own and act altruistically?  Is there some kind of in depth guidebook available that helps me determine which ideology is correct given a specific set of circumstances?  Or am I just to decide as I go along?

It is absurd for a culture to embrace opposing philosophical ideologies simultaneously.  Doing so produces a citizenry that fails no matter which philosophy they attempt to adopt.  If they are predominantly altruistic, they are failing to benefit society by chasing their own private interests.  If they are predominantly motivated by the “invisible hand”, they are failing to be a “good” person by benefiting society selflessly.

How, exactly, is one meant to balance out these two contradictory forces in their life?  Is it a 50/50 deal?  Or is it handled strictly on a case by case basis? 

Conclusion

Which is it America?

Are we supposed to strive to be altruistic above all else?

Or are we supposed to be in it to win it for ourselves?

The sad fact is, Western culture is ripe with ideological contradictions that are impossible to reconcile.  Our entire for profit monetary system is fueled by the “invisible hand” of devoted self-interest.  In stark contrast, we are constantly reminded that altruism is a noble trait we should strive to personify.  Is this some kind of sick joke?  How can we possibly embody both of these concepts?  It is impossible, and yet both philosophies exist with equal cultural force, ensuring a lifetime of mental turmoil for every participant in the system. 

When are we going to realize as a species that our cultural philosophy must work with our vision of the future, not against it.  We cannot present altruism as a noble ideal while allowing an opposite force (the invisible hand) to drive our global economic system (a system we are reliant upon in every way).  By participating in this blatant duality, we reduce the altruistic ideal to meaningless lip service.  We all know, despite the flowery words we often throw around, that the force truly shaping our future is the “invisible hand” of the monetary system.  Because money is a requirement of survival, the vast majority will adopt the philosophy that results in money.  Politicians and activists and preachers (etc.) can passionately voice the need for a more altruistic world, but so long as the accepted framework of our governing system is constructed from self interest, all such appeals amount to empty rhetoric. 

It is imperative that human beings move beyond this game of holding noble concepts high while actively participating in the opposite behavior when it comes to day to day life. 

How much stronger would we be if our culture was a direct reflection of the nobility we talk about in speeches?  How much further could we progress as a species if we stopped putting so much energy into convincing each other of our nobility and simply designed a system that embodied it?

Contradictions as blatant as “altruism vs. the invisible hand” are a symptom of a cultural-wide ideological tug-of-war.  We cannot run by sitting down and we cannot be altruistic by submitting to the “invisible hand” of the for profit monetary system.  A choice must be made.