Ever since man[1]
has discovered the ability to recognize his intelligence and apply it to his
own advantage, there have arisen two distinct ideologies, residing at the
opposing extremes of philosophical spectrum – self-interest and greater
interest.
The proponents of the first kind simply state that every individual
is responsible to further his own benefit and that a greater benefit accrues to
the society, or to put simply, every other individual benefits as a consequence
of this self-serving behavior of each individual.
The proponents of the second philosophical thought believe
that individuals must always work towards the greater benefit of the society,
and that individual interests are automatically best served as a consequence;
an individual must work to other’s benefit and as a consequence, he himself
will be benefitted since everyone else is doing the same.
The first kind of philosophy inherently puts conflict at the
center of the Universe. Two individuals working towards their own benefit will
eventually come to a point where they will have to fight for a common resource.
In order to maximize benefits for themselves, the two individuals will
necessarily have to engage in a conflict where one will prevail over the other.
The one who wins gets the resource and draws the maximum benefit since the
common resource is now entirely available to him. The loser, on the other hand,
doesn’t get any benefit since he doesn’t have access to the said resource
anymore. In a more dramatic consequence, the loser may wilt/die/disappear
depending on the nature and the context in which the two individuals exist.
The second philosophy seeks to eliminate all kinds of
conflict from the Universe. In their Universe, two individuals when working
with a common resource, will try to use the resource for both of them, and in
turn will end up with equal share of the benefit arising from the use of the
said resource.
Let’s take an example. Let’s say, the said resource is a
piece of bread large enough to sufficiently satisfy the hunger of a full grown
human being. Suppose that the two individuals in question are two full-grown
human beings, say X and Y on the verge of dying from starvation in the middle
of a desert.
In the first kind of Universe, one of the two, say X wins
the in the conflict and has access to the entire piece of bread. X satisfies his
hunger, goes home happily and tells stories of his valour to his grandchildren. Y,
on the other hand, gets no bread and dies.
In the second universe, X and Y divide the piece of bread
among them, satisfy their hunger only partially, and move on with their
lives.
While the second Universe appeals to the more humane and
considerate emotions, the feasibility of the solution changes as soon as one
tweaks the context to include one condition: the person needs the full loaf of
bread in order to survive and cross the desert.
In light of this tweak, it turns out that the first approach
is more beneficial to the society since at least one member of the species
survives. In the second case, both die because none of them receives sufficient
amount of bread to survive.
It becomes important to understand the primary factor at
play that determines the superiority of one approach over another – likelihood of
life (or number of survivors/population). Assuming that a life saved will
perhaps go on to do or create something meaningful for the society in future,
this seems to be a sufficient metric for us to measure the efficacy of these
approaches.
Let us evaluate the two approaches in the two scenarios
discussed earlier on the factor mentioned above.
Scenario 1
Approach 1: self to society
|
Approach 2: society to self
|
1/2
|
2/2
|
Scenario 2
Approach 1: self to society
|
Approach 2: society to self
|
1/2
|
0/2
|
Assuming that scenario 1 is as likely to occur as scenario 2
in the long term scheme of everything in this Universe, we see that both
approaches are exactly equal (= 1/2 or 50% survival).
This of course can be viewed as gross simplification of the
two philosophies. The proponents of the first kind will point us to the fact
that in our assumptions we considered only two fully grown men when the world
is made up of human beings not identical to each other in all respects.
Therefore, the emergent needs of the two persons may not be the same and one
may have a higher claim on the common resource than the other. While on the
other hand, the advocates of the second philosophy adroitly direct us to
consider the cost or loss that is incurred due to the conflict in the first
approach. This loss, it is claimed, may undermine any benefit that may be
accrued to the surviving individual.
What might be a better way to deal with such scenarios, and
if there is one, what is it? Which economic model may result in greater benefit
to be accrued to the society?
The answer may lie in a hybrid approach. In this approach
conflict is considered as an undesirable inevitability. Undesirable because the
losses arising due to the conflict are severe for everyone and therefore should
be avoided as much as possible, for as long as possible. Inevitable because
there will come a point where common resources will become so scarce that
sharing them will no longer benefit anyone at which point a conflict will be
needed.
In this approach, in scenario 1, the two individuals in our
example would have equally shared the piece of bread, not out of any great love
for each other, but only to avoid the unpleasantness of a conflict, however
minor. However, in scenario 2, they would have undertaken a conflict because
not undertaking it would not have increased their chances of survival. The
result is better chances of survival, 3/4 (or 75%).
Scenario 1
|
2/2
|
Scenario 2
|
1/2
|
How does this translate to an economic system then?
Theoretically, it may be argued that the first kind of
philosophy, the one from self to society, is a capitalist model of economy
while the second kind is a communist model of economy.
The hybrid approach follows an “enlightened” model of
capitalism where the capitalist invests in ensuring that its activities do not
hurt the interests of other groups of humans (or stakeholders) – the employees,
the society, the state etc. not out of any great love for them but purely from
an intention to avoid a showdown with them. This carries on until a point where
resources become so scarce that survival of the whole organization is at stake.
Then, the capitalist has no choice but to enter into a conflict with the other
stakeholders. This may either result in the organization shutting down or
emerging as a stronger company for the future at the cost of the society, the
environment, or some other resource.
It may be noted that by trying everything in its capacity to
avoid a conflict with any of the other stakeholders, the company ensures that
the need for conflict, if ever it arises, remains a rare event.
ps: In subsequent discussion with some people, I have realized that there is a possibility of one of the parties taking the advantage of another party by a series of little incursions and emphasizing the need for avoidance of conflict every time the latter complained of escalating the conflict. By doing this repeatedly, there is a possibility of the former weakening the latter to the extent where the former can completely eliminate the latter by undertaking a full-scale conflict. The proposed model of "enlightened capitalism" is insufficient to handle this case and needs reworking.
[1] In
the interest of simplicity and a desire to avoid the inconvenience of writing
him/her, and to avoid reducing the readability of the content, I will stick to the
convention of addressing males and females and every other gender in between with a
common, all-encompassing noun – man and refer to this entity as him and so on
and so forth.
