Society and Debt

-- By DanielYoon - 01 Mar 2018

Premise

A society is defined by the success and contributions of its members. Each dollar earned and spent in some productive capacity improves and strengthens the society’s ability to provide for its citizens in the form of a government, a common market, and the familiar trappings of a nation: culture, language, and religion, as well as countless other shared interests. Because each member’s contribution directly benefits the system, society as a whole has a crucial stake in ensuring that nobody is left behind— each person who is batted down by a combination of bad luck, bigotry, and systemic biases drains society of its resources by producing negative output, creating social unrest, and burdening the system. However, although the community plainly has such an interest, there remain two uncertainties: Should the individual concern themselves with the betterment of society, especially at their own cost, and, if so, how much should the individual sacrifice for the “greater good”?

The Greater Good

First, in order for society to thrive, each member must contribute and repay some of the natural debt they have derived from the collective sacrifices of others, and fortunately each member has great incentive to do so. Like a common green which is at threat of being over-grazed by ranchers driven by self-preservation, a society is at risk of being overrun and abused by its citizens. The system, comprised of government, educational institutions, a common economy, and culture, allows for individuals to succeed and amass wealth. In turn, these individuals must repay the debt they have accrued through the natural advantages they were afforded by the system (whether such advantages were deliberate or by luck), through contribution to the societal institutions which help others. A society which does not collect on these natural debts could not sustain itself. If the wealthiest members worked only for their own gain, manipulating the system and changing the rules to benefit themselves only, then society would suffer, economically and otherwise. Increased accumulation of wealth at the top leads to wealth inequality, which leads to more severe poverty. Poverty encourages and incentivizes crime, and the phenomenon of “food deserts”, which represent a lack of access to healthy and affordable food in impoverished areas, results in poorer health. In addition, wealth inequality may stifle support for pro-growth policies and dis-incentivize investment, leading to economic stagnation. Taking all of this into consideration, the individual has a keen interest in maintaining fairness and ensuring equitable contribution to society from each member. However, even if the individual recognizes that personal sacrifices are necessary for the betterment of society, such recognition is fruitless without extrinsic incentives. Fortunately, three factors pressure individuals to repay this natural debt. First, a moral obligation to repay gifts and help the disadvantaged exists. Second, positive contributions to society build future benefits for all. Third, individuals can derive personal gains from establishing themselves as a contributing member of society.

The Human Factor

Next, it is impossible to set a figure on just how much individuals owe their society. Tax codes establish portions of income and wealth owed to the government, but the contributions of a citizen encompass more than money. Although ideally, each individual would use every waking moment to contribute to society, humans are imperfect. Even somebody with every intention of prioritizing the “greater good” above all else may eventually collapse in a heap of exhaustion and cynicism. Everybody requires some selfish action to ensure they can mentally and emotionally continue to contribute. As a result, the obligation to contribute to society is limited not to the technical maximum efficiency that an individual can achieve, but the practical maximum efficiency that they can maintain. Therefore, some selfish action, in the form of self-care, is not only necessary, but also beneficial to society. However, it is crucial to not over-correct. One must not defer the repayment of their natural debt to the point of insolvency. One could reason that it would be smarter to take the higher paying, more morally questionable career path because it provides for a more secure future, more wealth, and an increased ability to contribute to society. After all, Bill Gates spent his career pursuing his own ends, and he reaped two primary benefits: He advanced technology, which contributes to society in and of itself, and he generated massive wealth which allowed him to repay his natural debt a hundred-fold through charity and investment. However, it is too easy to lose sight of such noble intentions along the way. In the midst of securing their finances, building for their family’s future, and maximizing their personal satisfaction, individuals may forget the debt they owe. Thus, the parasites of society are born, leveraging their inborn advantages for personal gain, to the detriment of society as a whole.

Resolution

The difficulty lies in finding the balance point; how selfish should an individual be? The balance point is virtually impossible to pinpoint, but the best course of action is to err on the selfish side. The key is to maintain a net-positive lifestyle, slowly chipping away at the natural debt over the course of a lifetime. In any given moment, an individual who contributes to society more than they leech its resources can say with certainty that they are making progress towards total repayment. As a result, they do not risk building their societal debt to the point of insolvency, yet they do not risk burning out. The crucial thing to note, however, is that such a natural debt does exist, and the rational individual should work to maximize the efficiency of their output over their lifetimes. Although each individual must act sub-optimally, taking more input than they need, while producing less output than desirable, one must not forget the necessity of contributing to society. Selfishness is key to sustaining a useful life, but it is only a means, not an end in itself.

First Draft: Society and Debt

-- By DanielYoon - 01 Mar 2018

Premise

The members of a society come together to build something that is greater than the sum of its parts. Optimally, each individual would have their own function, contributing to the community in their own specialized fashion. Each individual, drawing on their unique circumstances, skills, and life experiences, would take the input of education, time, energy, and skill, and convert it into some greater output, which could then be converted by others in much the same way.

What is optimal as opposed to actual about this account? The presence of unemployment, the failure to account for domestic labor and child-raising in the social accounting of production, or something else?

Inequality exists in even a perfect society—after all, variances in experiences and skills is the human condition, leading to a socially accepted and positively-viewed product deemed “culture”. Yet these inequalities nearly inevitably lead to inequity, and inequity leads to inefficiency. Each person who is batted down by a combination of bad luck, bigotry, and systemic biases drains society of its resources, often producing negative output, creating social unrest, and burdening the system.

This says that not everyone is optimally productive, but it isn't clear why that's the most important argument against "bigotry and systematic biases," or whether it is an argument against "bad luck" at all.

Natural Debt

Each individual owes some amount of “natural debt” to society. Everybody is a product of their environment, and invariably, they derive their happiness, success, and personal satisfaction from the collective sacrifices of others. They do not always ask for these sacrifices, but they are given freely, and sometimes forcibly retrieved. Such natural debt must be repaid.

Why?

If no individuals adhered to this obligation, ignoring the debt that they owe as a matter of course, society would cease to function properly. A society of selfish persons cannot thrive—the invisible hand is not enough to curb the selfishness of the human and the inequities of randomness.

This is not self-evident. That's why Ayn Rand still continues to enthrall young adolescent readers in particular. If you want to depend on the premise, there has to be some showing of reason for it.

Fortunately, three factors pressure individuals to repay this natural debt: 1) they feel a moral obligation to repay gifts and help the disadvantaged; 2) they recognize that positive contributions to society build future benefits for all; and 3) they understand the personal gains that they can derive from establishing oneself as a contributing member of society.

Any given individual may generate this natural debt in two ways. First, they may gain an advantage from birth, in the form of class, gender, race, sexuality, or any other category of humankind which benefits and suffers from the biases of an unfair system and society. Second, they may gain an advantage from luck—some are struck by unfortunate circumstance, and others benefit from lucky breaks and fortuitous timing. With the advantages derived in these two forms, then, each individual must fulfill their obligation to repay the natural debt incurred by redistributing resources, helping the disadvantaged, and increasing the positive output they can create for society.

Characterizing a view of ethical obligation as "debt" reifies it, I suppose, as though it had been made into a number instead of an idea. But how does that actually contribute to clarity? Are ethical arguments unnecessary once one has stated duties in terms of debts?

The Balance Point

Overcorrection

Unfortunately, humans are imperfect beings. Even an individual with every intention of prioritizing the “greater good” above all else will eventually fizzle out in a heap of exhaustion and cynicism. Every machine requires maintenance, and every human requires some selfish action to ensure they can mentally and emotionally continue to contribute. As a result, the obligation to contribute to society is limited not to the technical maximum efficiency that an individual can achieve, but the practical maximum efficiency that they can maintain—an individual working for 10 years at peak efficiency, who then burns out, decides they have contributed enough, and leeches off the system is worth less than the individual who works at 50% efficiency for their whole life. Therefore, some selfish action is not only necessary, but also beneficial to society.

Once again, how does characterizing self-interest as the opposite of "burn[ing] out" make our understanding clearer? Why is a mechanical analogy fruitful in addressing a psychological or an ethical question?

Undercorrection

On the other hand, an individual will often find themselves deferring the repayment of their natural debt until it is too late. They took the higher paying, more morally questionable career path because it would secure their future, and once they had the opportunity to take advantage of such security, they could give back to society even more efficiently. After all, they reason, Bill Gates spent his career pursuing his own ends, and he reaped two primary benefits: He advanced technology, which contributes to society in and of itself, and he generated massive wealth which allowed him to repay his natural debt a hundred-fold through charity and investment. And so millions of others pursue the same career arc—selfish now, selfless later.

Evidence?

Yet an alarming portion of society forgets somewhere along the way their noble intentions to repay their debt. In the midst of securing their finances, building for their family’s future, and maximizing their personal satisfaction, they lose sight of the debt they owe. The low road continues to dip lower, and the wealth they accrue sits still for the future, until the individual dies. These are the parasites of society, who leverage their inborn advantages for personal gain, to the detriment of society as a whole.

Resolution

The difficulty lies in finding the balance point; how selfish should an individual be? How many sacrifices should one take for the sake of society, before they risk their future mental health, and how many times can one make the self-serving decision before they realize they have only dug deeper into their natural debt for the sake of self-preservation? This balance point is virtually impossible to pinpoint, but the best course of action is to err on the selfish side. The key is to maintain a net-positive lifestyle, slowly chipping away at the natural debt over the course of a lifetime. In any given moment, an individual who contributes to society more than they leech its resources can say with certainty that they are making progress towards total repayment. As a result, they do not risk building their debt to the point of insolvency, yet they do not risk burning out.

All members of a society must work to maximize the efficiency of their output over their lifetimes. It is impossible to pinpoint the optimal workload which generates such efficiency while preventing burn-out, so each individual must act sub-optimally, taking more input than they need, while producing less output than desirable. Such selfishness is not only acceptable, but it is also good and necessary. If one is to contribute to society, thereby repaying the natural debt and working towards equity, selfishness is key.

Suppose we invert the draft, and begin with the primary idea, which is in fact a good general recommendation. The primary idea appears to be that healthy social functioning includes respect for the importance of self-interest, with which ethical action is not incompatible. But is there really any dispute about that point? You don't demonstrate in the course of the discussion in this draft that there is: you have pointed to no writer who disagrees. The most important route to improvement, therefore, is to reduce the reader's conviction that you are presenting a tautology as though it were a proposition under argument.

As I noted above, the second avenue to a better draft involves meeting ethical and psychological propositions on their own terms. The effort to turn ethical obligation into "debt" and self-interest into mechanical lubrication doesn't make the discussion clearer or the social theory richer; it deprives you of opportunities rather than creating them.