There is no such thing as interests independent of ideas, preceding them temporally and logically. What a man considers his interest is the result of his ideas. FULL ARTICLE by Ludwig von Mises
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13690/ideas-and-interests/
Ideas and Interests
Previous post: Caesar III and the Ubiquitous Failure of Central Planning
Next post: Fishy Business
{ 16 comments }
See Ayn Rand’s “Objectivist Ethics” in her _Virtue of Selfishness_ for the discovery that interest is based in the fact of life, not consciousness. Life is conditional , not permanent like matter. Eg, man needs food, shelter, clothing and freedom from the initiation of force. Man must value ,must act to maintain and/or get, these things which, objectively, maintain and further his life. Man’s interests are objectively demonstrated values. The fact that some men have destructive values, eg, drug addiction or socialism, does not mean that they are interests. They are whims. See Rand’s “What is Capitalism” in her _Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal_ for the application of ethics to politics.
“What a man considers his interest is the result of his ideas.”
That statement not only refutes Marx, but indicates how to differentiate between man and the animals. Both have consciousness & intentions, but man operates (primarily) on the basis of his ideas.
My only suggestion is that ‘ideas’ be considered broadly, so as to include metaphysical beliefs. Thus one not only considers the market value of a good, but how it fits into his sense of what life is all about. Mises focuses on economic particulars, whereas man’s moral and spiritual orientation can be most telling.
Stephen Grossman notes (via Ayn Rand) that “Man’s interests are objectively demonstrated values.” Yet that is consistent with man interpreting his interests on the basis of his ideas. Thus, one man will want to read a book, while another will want to burn that book.
Rand’s objective ethics is based on the _idea_ that a fact of reality, the conditional nature of life, requires a specific, life-based hierarchy of values. We must act to maintain and further our life. We use our consciousness to choose values but values exist only because life exists. Subjectivists choose values as if consciousness, apart from reality, is the source of value. Economics is about producing (and allocating and trading) material values for life, not for arbitrary pleasure. Values are facts relative to life as judged by a consciousness, in man’s case, by his mind. Mises’ subjectivist version of value is facts as useful for man’s arbitrary desires.
Stephen as you say, Objectivist ethics derives from objective considerations, in contrast with Mises’ subjectivist values. (Although I am not an Objectivist) I hold to such objective considerations, so that for example irresponsible behavior will result in our demise, whereas creative practices will result in our furtherance.
However, this does not refute Mises statement that “ideas determine what people consider to be their interests.” Ayn Rand did not hold to the Marxist position that peoples’ interests determine their ideas, but influenced them intellectually to adhere instead to reason.
but did mises mean ideas as the standard of interests or the method of knowing interests? he was a rationalist (ideas w/o concretes) so suspicion is justified.
Stephen, “arbitrary desires” vs. “producing (and allocating and trading) material values for life”?
Mises makes no such apriori distinction. Human Action merely accepts that ideas exist and that people inform their decisions by them. Assuming life as an absolute value, as you do, would merely be analyzed as a means to an end or the end sought, as well as a factor in establishing historical understanding. HA is about what people do and maximizing value-free analysis. At any rate, here is Mises in Theory and History, pg 207 :
“Modern economics traces all human actions back to
the value judgments of individuals. It never was so
foolish, as Myrdal charges, as to believe that all that
people are after is higher incomes and lower prices.
Against this unjustified criticism which has been repeated
a hundred times, Bohm-Bawerk already in his
first contribution to the theory of value, and then later
again and again, explicitly emphasized that the term
“well-being” (Wohlfahrtszwecke) as he uses it in the
exposition of the theory of value does not refer only
to concerns commonly called egoistic but comprehends
everything that appears to an individual as desirable
and worthy of being aimed at (erstrebenswert) .8″
(btw, that’s the socialist-liberal Gunnar Myrdal)
Yes Mrs Rothbard, I was about to quote Theory and Hystory Chapter one and two too, which goes quite deeply into metaphysical definitions. I have to mention that it is very well read in mp3 format (same reader?). Certainly one of the best podcasts. I wish there were more classics available as podcasts. Thanks again to the Mises.org staff.
Yes, Murray would be proud of the Institute’s educational offerings.
>Assuming life as an absolute value, as you do, would merely be analyzed as a means to an end
Anyone can reject life as his moral standard but the fact that life exists is the cause of values. Only life, not matter, faces the alternative of existence or non-existence, thus objectively requiring living organisms to value their own life to remain alive.
Marxism is the economics of the elite for the peasants, to prevent them from ever truly understanding economic principles and the true nature of mankind.It is the misunderstanding of market dynamics due to anti-elitist sentiments, that distorts the truth. Today’s anti-capitalists would have created an economics similar to Keynesian economics.The other misunderstanding within marxism is that the state is working in the interest of the peasants and not the elite. So we are looking at a contradiction which leads me back to my initial point of an economics for the peasants by the elite, to confuse them
“It recklessly calumniates all the leading members of that government, calling them swindlers, forgers, and embezzlers.” – Someone had accredited in this assertion? The imperial government french in 1871 was not corrupt? Was the champion of morality?
“It recklessly calumniates all the leading members of that government, calling them swindlers, forgers, and embezzlers.” – Single had missed say that the french regime in age was the Empire of Ethic.
Text nonsense. What do Von Mises mean, “It recklessly calumniates all the leading members of that government, calling them swindlers, forgers, and embezzlers.” That had not corruption in France in 19th century? Clearly these assertions are false according to History, because in age the corruption was universal.
What mises is trying to say here is that the pamphlet distributed by Marx, conflated the corruption of some as the corruption of all. And that this technique of painting all with the sins of the few would become the standard to be used in the furtherance of socialism and communism. Mises was not saying that there was no corruption in France. If you follow the works of Mises it can be seen that the state regardless of its construction lends itself to corruption. The point of the whole article is to show the error’s and contradiction’s in Marx’s theories.
I had supported Mises and Austrian School, also I’m critical of silliness by Marx. But this article is a misrepresentation of History. Say that had not corruption in France in 1870 only for criticize Marx, is a coarse misrepresentation of History. I expect that this text is only a attack by a marxists cracker tempted manipulate the texts by Mises, and that this text is removed, because I believe not that Mises said this stupidity.
this article is a misrepresentation of History.
Comments on this entry are closed.