The Age of Empathy by Frans de Waal Read Free Book Online Page B

collectivity for granted, but all group-living organisms are sensitive to it. They’re all in the same boat. If this applies to other primates, how much more so to our own species with its more intricate societies? Most of us recognize the need to uphold certain services and institutions and are prepared to work toward this goal. Social Darwinists may disagree, but from a truly Darwinian perspective it is entirely logical to expect a “social motive” in group-living animals, one that makes them strive for a well-functioning whole.
    By itself, this motive doesn’t suffice. Perhaps bees or ants—that live in communities in which everyone is closely related and serves the same queen—are willing to work their hearts out for the common good, but humans are not. No matter how much brainwashing we engage in and patriotic songs we sing, we will always think of ourselves before we think of society. If any good has come out of the communist “experiment,” it is this clarification of the limits of solidarity.
    Purely selfish motives, on the other hand, don’t suffice, either. There’s such a thing as “enlightened” self-interest, which makes uswork toward the kind of society that serves our own best interests. Both rich and poor rely on the same sewer system, highways, and law enforcement. All of us need national defense, education, and health care. A society operates like a contract: Those who gain from it are expected to contribute, and conversely, those who contribute feel entitled to get something out of it. We enter this contract automatically while growing up in a society, and react with outrage if it’s violated.
    At a 2007 political rally, Steve Skvara, a steelworker from Indiana, almost burst into tears describing his predicament:
    After 34 years with LTV Steel, I was forced to retire because of a disability. Two years later, LTV filed bankruptcy. I lost a third of my pension, and my family lost their health care. Every day of my life, I sit at the kitchen table across from the woman who devoted 36 years of her life to my family, and I can’t afford to pay for her health care.
    In the same way that Skvara felt an obligation to his wife, society ought to feel an obligation toward him after a lifetime of hard work. This is a
moral
issue, which is why Skvara received a standing ovation when he challenged the political candidates present, adding “What’s wrong with America and what will you do to change it?”
    In fact, American society is entering a period of correction, given the collapse of its financial system and the dimensions of its healthcare crisis. Reliance on the profit principle has proven disastrous, so that the United States now ranks dead last in the industrialized world in terms of the quality of the health care that it provides. Western Europe, on the other hand, has enviable health care but it is, for other reasons and in other areas, moving in the opposite direction. When citizens are pampered by the state, they lose interest in economic advancement. They become passive players more interested in taking than in giving. Some nations have already turned back the clock on the welfare state, and others are expected to follow.
    Every society needs to strike a balance between selfish and socialmotives to ensure that its economy serves society rather than the other way around. Economists often ignore this dynamic, thinking only in terms of money. Celebrated economist Milton Friedman claimed that “few trends could so very undermine the foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible.” Friedman thus offered an ideology that puts people last.
    Even if Friedman were right in theory about the connection between money and freedom, in practice money corrupts. All too often it leads to exploitation, injustice, and rampant dishonesty. Given its colossal fraud, the Enron Corporation’s