Skip to main content

How much is enough? (A Comment)

This is a rather late comment on an important book I read earlier in the year : 'How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life' by the brothers Robert and Edward Skidelsky. I say late because there's a long gap between when I read it and now, so my thoughts may be loose in places. For the same reason, this is a comment rather than a review, though the difference is subjective. 

The book is exactly as its title suggests. It is offered as a contribution to rethinking what we want out of life: what money is for and what is meant by ‘the good life’. To make their point, the authors reanimate certain philosophical and ethical ideas which they believe "have long been out of favour but which are by no means extinct".

They believe that people are essentially ethical but find it difficult to express their choices meaningfully because they are so "institutionalised by their occupations, as prisoners are by their incarceration, that they can no longer imagine life outside their accustomed habitats". The book is an attempt to help them discover one. It is intended to persuade the reader that we should focus on pursuing the good or fruitful life rather focusing on pursuing money or well..

The authors surprisingly do a great job in poking holes into the current focus on increasing incomes. The pursuit of wealth has become the cornerstone of Western economic policy without asking society asking why wealth needs to be overriding object! What I found quite fascinating is evidence they pull together to show that societies have not always been driven by the goal of accumulating more and more! Much of the pursuit of the economic growth as a policy goal goes back to Adam Smith.

According to Skildesky and Skildesky, Adam Smith overthrew “the classical scheme of virtues and vices” in exchange for releasing of motives that promoted economic growth - namely greed. Acquisitiveness was licensed on condition it served the social good. The social good was lost as a collective achievement. It became a result of individuals pursuing their self-interest in markets. The logic of contract was sundered from the logic of reciprocity, which in most human cultures and societies has been an integral part of the economy. As economics developed, it became increasingly difficult to distinguish wants from needs.

The pursuit of incomes as an end is problematic because making money cannot actually be an end in itself ultimately – at least for anyone not suffering from acute mental disorder. To say that my purpose in life is to make more and more money is like saying that my aim in eating is to get fatter and fatter. The authors believe that "what is true of individuals is also true of societies". Making money cannot be the permanent business of humanity, for the simple reason that there is nothing to do with money except spend it. And we cannot just go on spending. There will come a point when we will be satiated or disgusted or both.

Skildesky and Skildesky go on to argue that the objective requirements of a good and comfortable life are finite in quantity, but wants, being purely psychic, are infinitely expandable, as to both quantity and quality. This means that economic growth has no natural tendency to stop. If it comes to a halt, it will be because people choose not to want more than they need. But how will people stop? This means that society ultimately is headed on the wrong path thanks to Adam Smith.

Despite these strong argument the book is not without obvious weaknesses. Three particularly stood out. First, it is largely anthropocentric. The authors start with an important observation:
Most modern political theory starts from the consideration of what is just, or fair, in the abstract, and proceeds to derive from this ‘just’ social arrangements. Our approach is different. We start with the individual and his needs, from which we try to build up a picture of the common good The question is: why do people who ‘have everything’ always seem to want more? There are two approaches to answering this question, the first of which starts with the nature of human wants in isolation, and the second which considers them in relation to those of others. The opposition between the two is admittedly largely artificial. Wants are individual; but the way they get expressed, the way they are encouraged or suppressed, is social. Which explanatory variable the investigator chooses to emphasise depends largely on whether he is interested in establishing the facts of individual psychology or whether, taking these facts as given, he tries to work out their consequences for social behaviour.
The question is certainly important. However, the two suggested approaches to answering the questions are essentially one approach under one umbrella called "anthropocentric". They start the explanation with man. The real alternative is the "theocentric" or "Christocentric" explanation, which starts with God or Christ at the centre of the human predicament. It is surprising that a book on ethics would forget the analytical alternative of theocentric framework.

Secondly, the book does not ultimately ground its concern effectively. The big question one as you read through the book is : why should it matter that money won't buy me happiness? The authors answer to this question is perplexing:
Life has no goal beyond its own perfection; to sacrifice this perfection to some distant object – to revolution, say, or the success of the corporate brand – is foolish or worse. But this is not a licence for self-indulgence....The good life is not simply one of satisfied desire; it indicates the proper goal of desire. Desire is to be cultivated, directed to the truly desirable. Moral education is an education of the sentiments.
Needless to say that hardly answers the question! The inadequacy in this area necessarily means that any alternatives they propose to pursuing incomes would be weak. But even if someone accept that we should abandon the pursuit of growth and focus on the good life there will be disagreement on what constitutes the "good life".  

This brings us to the third problem : the book does not adequately ground its solution.  The authors propose concept of the good life based on ancient philosophies and what they regard as "common traits" found in civilisations. But those things themselves are to be taken as given and cannot be grounded on anything. Someone else can come up with their own list of what constitutes the good life. Who is to say which is better? And then we have the problem that within that list trade-offs must be made. But how does one make trade offs? What is the objective standard? And does that then not make that very standard a goal we should aim for?

There are also some basic errors stemming from poor understanding of Christianity. For example, they say that “the Bible tells us that man was condemned to work in painful expiation of his disobedience to God.” That is clearly wrong. The Bible does not present work as a function of the fall. Work was there in the beginning. Adam was a gardener before he fell from grace. That is just one of many errors littered in the book.

As a work of economics the book will disappoint many because it is quite scathing of economics. As a work of philosophy it comes far short with dealing with the big questions. But it is still helpful contribution and well worth the read! I certainly enjoyed it! It certainly has some great quotables!

Copyright © Chola Mukanga 2013


Popular posts from this blog

I am what I am by Gloria Gaynor

Beverly Knight closed the opening ceremony of the Paralympics with what has been dubbed the signature tune of the Paralympics. I had no idea Ms Knight is still in the singing business. And clearly going by the raving reviews she will continue to be around. One media source says her performance was so electric that "there wasn’t a dry eye to be seen as she sang the lyrics to the song and people even watching at home felt the passion in her words" . The song was Gloria Gaynor's I am what I am . Clearly not written by Gloria Gaynor but certainly musically owned and popularized by her. It opens triumphantly: I am what I am / I am my own special creation / So come take a look / Give me the hook or the ovation / It's my world that I want to have a little pride in / My world and it's not a place I have to hide in / Life's not worth a damn till you can say I am what I am The words “I am what I am” echo over ten times in the song. A bold declaration that she

Pornography as Occultism

There is a kind of helplessness that a man engaged in pornography exhibits. He often speaks of it in terms of a “struggle” or an “addiction.” Now both of those terms are accurate, I believe, but they distance a person from his sin in a soul-decaying manner. Pornography is not just an addiction; it is occultism. The man who sits upstairs viewing pornography while his wife chauffeurs the kids to soccer practice is not some unusual “pervert”; he is (like his forefather Adam) seeking the mystery of the universe apart from Christ. That’s the reason the one picture, stored in his memory, of that naked woman will never be enough for him. He will never be able to be satisfied because he will never be able to get an image naked enough. I say pornography is occultism because I believe the draw toward it is more than biological (though that is strong). The satanic powers understand that “the sexually immoral person sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). They understand that the pornographic

Inconsistency of Moral Progress

If morality, if our ideas of right and wrong, are purely subjective, we should have to abandon any idea of moral progress (or regress), not only in the history of nations, but in the lifetime of each individual. The very concept of moral progress implies an external moral standard by which not only to measure that a present moral state is different from an earlier one but also to pronounce that it is "better" than the earlier one.  Without such a standard, how could one say that the moral state of a culture in which cannibalism is regarded as an abhorrent crime is any "better" than a society in which it is an acceptable culinary practice? Naturalism denies this. For instance, Yuval Harari asserts: "Hammurabi and the American Founding Fathers alike imagined a reality governed by universal and immutable principles of justice, such as equality or hierarchy. Yet the only place where such universal principles exist is in the fertile imagination of Sapiens, and in th