Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

Interests and utility are different concepts. Many economists assume that interests can be modeled by a utility function, assigning a number to interests or at least enforcing an ordering, but there are some who do not. I have a lot of problems with the concept of utility functions, which I've scattered throughout replies to other comments in this tree.

Thank you very much for turning me on to Price. That's a fascinating story.

Homo Economicus might be fictional, but Corpo Economicus and Beaureau Econonomicus are not. Whenever individuals must make decisions on behalf of organizations (public or private), they must be able to justify their actions in the rational, sometimes psychopathic, terms of their institution (to make legible decisions, to use Venkatesh Rao's terminology).

Though economics is value-neutral when it comes to what individuals define as their best interests, institutions have their best interests defined quite explicitly, and are often indifferent to any other outcome. Applying the rational actor model to such institutions provides a great deal of cover, if not active encouragement, for maximizing the acquisition of power and resources with little regard for the irrational human processes of morality, responsibility and decency.

I think what you're really saying with all those fancy words about pre-existing moral validations (which is really just an argument from authority) is that you agree with Gandhi/MLK/Pussy Riot that the laws they willfully broke were in fact unjust, and the authorities they were fighting against were tyrannical, and their motives were wholesome, whereas you don't feel that the laws Uber willfully breaks are unjust (or perhaps not unjust enough), and the authorities they are fighting are tyrannical etc. etc. - enough to justify their behaviour.

Keep in mind that at the time Gandhi and MLK were acting, the "right-thinking" dominant majority would have had the same reaction to them - sure, the British might not be perfect, but is it really necessary to cause all this awful fuss about it? Why not just work with them and try and be reasonable? Sure, blacks might not have everything the way they'd like it in the South, but let's not get too extreme here people!

Of course now we all know that negotiating with and beseeching the power agents in these cases was never going to work - the British were never interested in giving up their golden goose, and the whites in the South were never interested in treating blacks as equals. These systems had to be fought against and willfully resisted for people to see what happened when those in power asserted their entrenched position, to understand that it was an absurd, unjust, and exploitative power structure shielding itself with flimsy moral justifications. Change required swimming against the tide of social opinion. Of course now it's all very easy to say "well they were right and weren't they wonderful people" and forget the fact that at the time they were hated.

People in the future may well look back at companies like Uber and similarly appreciate the service they did to humanity by fighting incumbent, corrupted institutions, by fighting for the right for people to make their own decisions about the services they purchase, the contracts they enter into, and the risks they are willing to bear. They may well realise that at the time there was no point negotiating or pleading with the various feudal power brokers of the world - these city halls were never interested in giving up their rights to say who was allowed to sell what to whom under what conditions and at what price - they were too corrupted and no longer really existed to serve their putative original purpose.

You might feel like Uber rubs you the wrong way but at the very least you should realise that there is a significant possibility that people in the future will see you as naive and socialised as those who felt distaste and discomfort at Gandhi and MLK. That alone should give you cause to reconsider your position.

Without getting too cheesy: I think the gods have spoken through the apparently "irrational" existence of (sorry for the cheesiness!) love, which I define as the the active valuing of other life as more valuable than or at least equal in value to your own. While this is a form of selflessness, I actually think this works in conjunction with the basic belief that human beings are ultimately self-interested, because I believe that to recognize value in others beside yourself and act on that recognition is the most fulfilling and self-satisfying thing a human can do.

To me, this weird alignment of the interests of self and other is pretty counterintuitive and only proven through its exercise/practice, but in any case seems pretty magical/mystical/awesome. I think the fact that a good chunk of modern social structure/law/convention is built on the restraint of the self for the benefit of others (which itself translates into net gains for society overall - magic!) is a manifestation of this fact, and also rears its head in Christianity and almost all other religions (though of course like everything in life, the good is mixed in with some fucked up stuff too).

I can’t really say I have evidence for this other than personal observation of contemporary experiences, historical analysis and my own mind’s logic, but based on those it seems to me that (1) people who treat other people poorly or indifferently seem to be relatively unhappy/dissatisfied and do not feel self-realized and feel disconnected/alienated from those around them and still yearn for more power, wealth, etc. even in spite of the fact that they have more than most and (2) people who treat others well seem to be happy and self-realized and connected to those around them and seem to be relatively satisfied with relatively less power and wealth, etc.

Similarly, societies wherein those in power treat people (relatively) fairly seem to thrive more than societies where those in power treat people unfairly - it seems that this also applies in some way to those who hold the power when comparing relative situations: would you rather be [enter name of random hundred millionaire in America] (who owns only a small portion of American wealth) or Mugabe (who owns/controls half of Zimbabwe)? (cherry-picked that one...haha but still, I don't think it's too off-point)

This is of course assuming that being happy, satisfied, connected and self-realized are in fact, things that are good and that people want, but still, it seems to hold true in my mind through my observation and experience - I’d say I started paying attention around 14, and I’m 29 now, so that’s about a 15 year experiment, and it’s been trending pretty steadily in that direction.