The Purpose of Work: Essay 1
The ethical and spiritual purpose of work is to sustain oneself and one’s family. It is with this in mind we should contemplate how we choose to earn our living and pay our bills. That isn’t to say that work should be joyless, or that it should be back breaking and menial. It also doesn’t mean that we must accept subsistence or below subsistence standards. But, in everything we do we must ask how we are affecting those around us, the community at large and even the environment. This is right action. By contemplating right action and following where that leads us we are obeying that part of the Great Commandment that tells us to “love our neighbors as ourselves.”
I am presently uncertain of the morality of the stock market or capitalism as a whole. I certainly believe that an unregulated free market is an immoral one. It leaves wide open the way for those whose inflated egos are prone to take advantage of those less capable then them selves - among other things. Yet, free enterprise allows for the individual or groups of individuals to pursue work that fulfills their passions and stays true to their personal values.
A planned economy is equally immoral even though it purports to operate from the Marxist principal of ‘each according to his need, each according to his ability.” Human nature being what it is has proven that the utopian classless society is not possible - at least not in our present state of consciousness. There is always a privileged class of people. As long as one can nurture hatred, jealousy or covetedness in one’s heart for what they perceive someone else has, be it an extra slice of cheese or choice of spouse, you will never have a situation where people are truly on equal footing.
Then there is the matter of ability. We are not all of equal ability. There are differing levels of intelligence and skill. The genius and the developmentally challenged are often at odds with the society of at large. They don’t fit into the pre-molded concepts of value.
Then there is everyone in between competing for what is available. Generally socialist attempts to “level the playing field” end in punishing or depriving those with abilities in order to provide those with less what, liberals assume, is opportunity. The problem is this is no more just or moral than the opposite stance of doing nothing. Socialism as it has been applied since the beginning of the 20th century always ends in leveling the playing field in favor of poverty. Instead of a truly just or classless society you have a huge gap between the wealthy elite and the lower classes with very little upward mobility available.
American Socialism or progressive political philosophy does nothing to level the playing field. In fact they are just as guilty as their conservative opponents in creating a massive gulf between elite and the working class. The middle class is often decimated by actions from both conservative and liberal forces operating our countries political machinery.
The problem with post modern liberalism is that it relies too heavily on the state to correct the problems and to enact and enforce legislation that it feels must be passed. Wick Allison’s summary of liberal philosophy in the line “there ought to be a law” is as apropos as it is amusing. Once upon a time - Pre Marxist 19th century - the liberals, at least the majority of American liberals, had a basic distrust of the state. They wanted to keep government as small as possible and out of the lives of private citizens. This is no longer the case except with left leaning Libertarians - i.e. Libertarian Socialists - who look for ways to apply socialist idealism with libertarian idealism. In the most extreme cases the L.S. group would be happy with the abolition of the state altogether, except maybe to serve functions such as the common defense.
Most of the armchair liberals I know today would lay claim to the Libertarian values of post modern liberalisms antecedents, but don’t give much thought to how the policies they support and vote for betray those original ideals. One cannot do much of what American progressives hope to accomplish without a large degree of government intervention. A certain amount of social insurance is a valuable and useful thing, but too much can throw an economy off balance as easily as laissez faire.
However, all that being said it is imperative that we find a middle way - somewhere between massive government intervention and total unregulated chaos. American capitalism has turned into an oligarchy of greed. Large corporations are destroying the ability of the average person in the middle or working classes to obtain life sustaining work. The stock market fuels this greed.
The principals of right action must be in place and acted upon from the topmost levels down as well as among the working classes. Conservatives whine about the lack of personal accountability among today’s consumers and working class. They accuse us of entitlement attitudes, yet what is corporate welfare? What are the economic bail out packages? This is nothing less but the obvious lack of morality or accountability among our nation’s elite. The corporate oligarchs expect the taxpayers to subsidize inferior industries.
If you like trickle down economics so much (talk about immoral) why not let good ethics and personal accountability be what you trickle down on the rest of us?
Next: A Meditation on the Morality of American Corporate Capitalism