Hayek on Moral Values & Altruism

[@blueshade26]

god, watching a video like this just makes me feel smarter.

[@0wi1l1am0]

Hayek as always brilliantly rational. I yearn for the days when television comprised interviews with men of his calibre.

[@Malthus0]

''altruism occurs without conscience or consciousness in Hayek's model'' He was talking about instinct. He is quite aware that the people have to exercise will to do altruistic acts. He is making the point that altruism, solidarity, love fellow feeling can never replace markets & several(as in many different different people) property as the economic ordering mechanism of society but only work with & through that mechanism.

[@Myndir]

@BrutusAlbion Non-intellectual moral traditions are not invented. They are evolved. That is Hayek's key point. He makes a big point about fighting natural tendencies. A key thesis of Hayek is that civilisation requires that we fight against our natural instincts, which was why he didn't like Freudians. Our instincts are partial and inconsistent, whereas an advanced civilisation needs rules that are impartial and consistent.

[@giovannibalestrieri9723]

Questo è stato davvero uno dei maggiori pensatori del '900!

[@999qoou]

"by persuing profit, we are being as altruistic as we can be" woooord!

[@whiff1962]

Thus the battle between the Planned economy and the free-market; of the Collectivist and the Individualists. Keeping my wealth or having it stolen for the sake of a total stranger, whose needs I ostensibly lessen?

[@noooreally]

Your wealth, how did you obtain your wealth?

[@kurtjk01]

As long as it is not stolen by weapon or subterfuge, what does it matter where one's wealth comes from?

[@PreciousBoxer]

Perhaps the fatal conceit is in asking, wealth of what? Private property and family? I'm more impressed by Friedman since those two things have subsidized one corrupt dynasty after another. The most notable being Trump, Clinton, and the Bush cartel families. Congress should implement NIT, imo.

[@ReichWingWatch]

So called "individualists" support the mass pillaging of the working class by the capitalist plutocrats. So called "collectivists" think that workers should own what they produce, and not some hierarchical elite. Which sounds more like theft to you?

[@mattheweaton1420]

If you want to own the products of your own work, then start your own business. Most people are not willing to put in the work, capital, and risk to run their own business, so they agree to work for a business run by someone else. This is done with the understanding that the owner controls the products and profits. Also, collective ownership means every worker owns the work of every other worker. No worker fully owns their own work.

[@MortenDanPedersen]

@Malthus0: Hayak is not talking about morality but about market mechanisms. Any market will automaticly follow these tendancies. It´s like the law of gravity.

[@grandmasterqz]

the point that is often missed, I think, is that morality is not something that can be dictated through law as the proponents of socialism, and altruistic society would like to believe, and the current economic crisis proves this. People in general have to take the charge for their lives because what is given to you by one entity can also be taken away.

[@Malthus0]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo We are talking at cross purposes I think. All Hayek is suggesting is that Altruisms role can not take the place of trade/markets in organising society. Community =/= society They have different natures. The rules that apply to one do not apply to another so transplanting them is impossible. It is in this context that profit is mentioned. As against the kind of socialist who thinks that the solidarity(altrusim) of the small group should be the model for modern society.

[@Malthus0]

@MortenDanPedersen ''Hayak is not talking about morality but about market mechanisms'' I don't understand what you mean. Hayek is talking about his theory of group selection, where competition between social groups leads to the evolution of moral values. This process is not a market process.

[@BrutusAlbion]

@Malthus0 I think he clearly said that the 2nd level of morals were traditions, the 3rd level are the intellectual imaginations and ideals we thrust upon the world such as marx.

[@mattlm64]

Example: I make iPhone apps. I haven't got a clue who most of the people are who download them. The advertisers who use iAd through my apps and others, I don't know who all of them are. All I know is that a few of the apps make me money so I must be providing value to certain people.

[@Questfortruth86]

Absolutely brilliant. Thank you malthus. Markets incentivize altruism. I serve the needs of those I don't even know because of the market mechanism--because of the extended order. "It's a miracle that Paris gets fed."

[@xealit]

As Ben Shapiro put it on altruism and capitalism: in capitalism you say "if I don't give you something I'll starve".

[@TheDionysianFields]

Right, but you have to give someone something they perceive to be of value. So there's a bit of coerciveness going on. It's not like I can just paint a picture and get paid.

[@xealit]

@@TheDionysianFields Yes, you don’t say “if I don’t give you something _I want_ I’ll starve”. It is “if I don’t give you something _you want_”. Because it is not about you, but about those who receive your stuff. This “coerciveness” comes from natural laws of the world we live in. Gravity is also coercive. So is starving.

[@TheDionysianFields]

@@xealit No, not natural at all. Society colludes to determine what's of value. We are born into a society that's already decided what it will and won't pay for. The gifts we're born with may or may not be considered valuable. Hence, we are forced to modify our natural selves and conform to the going value system rather than simply express what is within us. If, of course, we're interested in getting paid.

[@xealit]

@@TheDionysianFields besides the society, you are born into a real world with some hard rules. The society also lives in that world and it has to adapt to the rules too. One of these rules is: to have something, it must be made first. You have to produce something before consuming. The society does not change this rule. The only effect it has is to divide the problem of producing stuff into sub-problems - specialise and divide the labour. The society is certainly does not collude to define what's valuable in this world. There is no way to cheat the world, you can only lie to yourself that way. The sum of the rule "to consume something, you have to produce it first" and the division of labour in society equals exactly to "if I do not give you something, I will starve".

[@TheDionysianFields]

@@xealit I think you're intentionally missing the point. I agree that you have to produce if you want to consume. But unless you have the means to produce everything you need to consume, you're forced to produce things that fit a set of values you had no say in. And a set of values that may be completely antithetical to life/health/progress/happiness/vitality/truth/etc A set of values that may even force you to violate your own soul.

[@Malthus0]

@BrutusAlbion That is correct, I did not intend to signal otherwise.

[@davedavedaveannoy1]

If instituted amongst individuals, of their own will and their own volition, separate from the entity of The State and without the use of coercive measures, altruism can indeed be a truly wonderful thing. I myself am religious and have grown up in such a community where tithes are given and provided when needed. I can see the wonderful changes it has on families and brings happiness not only to them but to me. However, I firmly believe it has NO place in government, it's not a tool for power.

[@PabloGarcia-cb8eo]

This is way more detailed in his last book: The fatal conceit.

[@andreipopescu5342]

Bless his wonderful soul, he was a bit hard to follow sometimes! But he was a god among ants.

[@Malthus0]

@FAHayek89 I do not think that Hayek would disagree with you, as for Hayek conflict & competition were what defined the evolutionary selection of moral traditions. What he calls in the video group selection. Also Hayek might point out that even intra rational level conflict is also in a way between sources. As at base the 'supposed designs of our intellect' are only really rationalisations of existing moral ideas that come ether from an evolved traditional or primitive & atavistic source.

[@quidal84]

@zzsharka To you if a country is not communist, it must be capitalistic. Capitalistic is country in which there is private ownership of means of production. The gap between rich and a poor is totally irrelevant for this definition. The gap between Stalin and rest of soviet society was large, but it was not capitalism.

[@kgutschick]

anyone know where I can get a transcrpt of this? I am a teacher and would like my class to read along.

[@quidal84]

@zzsharka Employers do not make their employees work longer and harder, in fact over the last centuries, we have seen exactly the opposite. And it was even before it was enforced by politicians, the employers did that themselves. Lastly, the motives of the capitalists are not so important, whether they do something for themselves or not, the outcome is much more important.

[@bobjimjones]

brilliance

[@bruceduece1]

Agreed. That's where I differ from Hayek. I think that markets are a human creation and therefore the rules of economics are not fixed. Smith's ":invisible hand" makes it appear as though supernatural forces are at work in the market, as if God himself is the inventor of capital. That raises capital to the status of a religion. All religions are human inventions. Also, altruism occurs without conscience or consciousness in Hayek's model. I believe free will has a place..

[@ThePallidor]

Adam Smith said, "as if by an invisible hand," so it wasn't religious. It is mysterious only in the sense that it is too detailed for one person to know. See "I, Pencil: The Movie."

[@Itsmespiv4192]

@@ThePallidor Bruh is t0o complex to understand

[@adulby]

I reap what I sow and you will not reap my sowing without my permission.

[@ShannonFreng]

What is the year of this interview?

[@Malthus0]

1985 I think.

[@ShannonFreng]

@@Malthus0 Thanks.

[@bruceduece1]

Well put! Of course, I'm assuming you're being facetious.

[@quidal84]

@zzsharka can you deny India is catching up with West? No. Indians can be poor but they are at least DEVELOPING. In spite the fact they have a system which is far from capitalism..., they are developing faster than the dying Europe anyway.

[@PrivateAckbar]

@BrutusAlbion According to natural law you have the right to do anything it is within your power to do. To a classical liberal the only caveat you make to this is the non-aggression principal, and that principal provides the pacifism most consistent with prosperity. Free market capitalism isn't designed the way we try to design socialism. We create Adam Smith's invisible hand through our free actions not by assuming the right to force.

[@bruceduece1]

Once again I agree with you. The problem is that the Hayek model has been used as a pretext for social Darwinism. I find it troubling that the same reactionary ideas, discredited by the Great Depression and WWII, are finding new life. The "new" fascism attempts to justify its ruthless vision by citing from context thinkers such as Hayek. While alive, he didn't do much to stop it, though. While his writings contain much truth, they are not an economic bible.

[@mr.mcfife4131]

The things great depresion and wwii have disredited are illiberal ideas. But of course people like you like to turn it upside down.

[@Malthus0]

''human creation'' Of course humans 'create' markets but that does not mean that they are created like when you build a bridge or launch a satellite. No one sat down & draws up plans & organises them. It is an ordered pattern without conscious ordering. If that were not the case they would not be markets but something else. You will have to explain what you mean by 'capital' (it has many meanings) & why it supposedly has the status of religion.

[@Malthus0]

@BrutusAlbion ''and that man should follow his natural path instead of trying to fight his innate tendencies'' No Hayek is saying that we should NOT follow our innate or 'natural' tendencies. ''he forgets that these moral traditions are invented'' No he does not. He is fully aware of the 'inventors' of morality from Moses to Marx. Who assumed that what felt natural was right. He is saying that culture is neither natural nor artificial. It is the third intermediate source of human values.

[@Malthus0]

''morality follows self interest'' No Hayek thinks morality develops from group competition.'law is as immutable' economic law does not change, but institutions do. ''markets are a human invention'' He is saying markets are NOT a human invention i.e. human designed.But rather are the result of human action. ''capable of adaptation & change'' Yes markets adapt to changes in rules & circumstance. ''happenstance'' Progress evolves so is not consciously controllable or foreseeable but is not random

[@Malthus0]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo ''naive as the silly arguments that communists make'' Really what he is saying is just an extension of the idea that at the level of society(as opposed to acting on a personal level) man is too ignorant to make choices based on altruism work as intended. He is not denying the usefullness of charitable giving or the goodness of altrusim just its applicability as an overarching 'goal' in the context of a spontaneous social order held together by abstract signals.

[@quidal84]

@zzsharka Decreased wages? What!? Wages are going up 10% each year.

[@quidal84]

@zzsharka Where did you find this claim that the gap between rich and the poor is increasing? Remarkable statement, fortunately false. China is catching up with USA, India comes next, inspite the fact most so-called "international aid" goes to Africa (ruining the people in there in effect...) Should people pay the workers as much as possible? That is nonsense, that would mean the workers would exploit their employers now... And what is worse: cheating tax system, or taxing?

[@quidal84]

@zzsharka USA was land of opportunity before 1913....

[@nicolasplagne5577]

Ridiculous pedantic sophistry

[@freedomwarrior6632]

Long live communism and social darwinism

[@bruceduece1]

Hayek's idea that morality follows self interest is nothing new. His legacy lies in his assertion that morality is adapted as a mechanism for economic order. However, his view that economic law is as immutable as physics ignores the fact that markets are a human invention, and as such, capable of adaptation and change.The dark side of Hayek lurks in his contention that human progress through the markets is happenstance. If true, his model is seriously flawed.

[@BrutusAlbion]

Hayek talk's as if free market capitalism is invented by nature as a moral tradition and that man should follow his natural path instead of trying to fight his innate tendencies. There he forgets that these moral traditions are invented just as well by intellectuals as any other form of sociëty. Falsely assuming that your theories are right about the values men hold is not the firmest base to support your theories on human societal planning.

[@ThePallidor]

Moral traditions can be influenced by intellectuals but they are not designed by them. That's the key difference.

[@carlosgarciahernandez7201]

His take on instincts is total ascientific and bias

[@ThePallidor]

He is only saying we have an instinct toward being generous to others, which shouldn't be controversial.