Latest / Reformed Thinking / How Self-Love Shapes Our Love for Others—for Good or Evil | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

How Self-Love Shapes Our Love for Others—for Good or Evil | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reform Thinking. So I want you to think about the
0:04
most selfless thing you did this week.
0:06
Oh boy, putting people on the spot right away.
0:09
Right. But seriously, just, you know,
0:11
think about it. Maybe you gave up your seat on
0:15
the train for someone who looked exhausted.
0:17
Or maybe you spent your entire Saturday morning helping a
0:21
friend move a really heavy sofa. U like three flights of stairs?
0:25
Ah, the worst. Yeah, truly the worst.
0:27
Yeah. Or maybe you just quietly aid
0:29
for the coffee of the person in line behind you when you do
0:32
something like that. There is this, this expectation
0:36
of clean, bright lines. Yeah, you do a good thing.
0:39
You feel like a good person. And the motive feels completely
0:42
straightforward. It feels, you know, 100%
0:44
selfless. Right.
0:45
I mean, it is incredibly comforting to categorize our
0:47
actions neatly like that. We sort of mentally build these
0:50
two buckets for our behavior. Buckets, yeah.
0:53
Yeah, so selfish actions like cutting someone off in traffic,
0:56
those go into one bucket. And then benevolent, loving
0:59
actions like helping that friend move, they go into the other.
1:02
That binary system keeps the world feeling safe and
1:05
predictable. But what if I told you that an
1:09
18th century philosopher can logically, almost
1:13
mathematically, prove that you only helped your friend move
1:16
that sofa to protect your own ego?
1:18
Oh wow. Yeah, what if that perfectly
1:20
selfless act was actually a highly sophisticated defense
1:24
mechanism? That is a tough pill to swallow.
1:26
It is, but that is what we are getting into today.
1:29
Welcome to this deep dive. Today, we are tearing apart a
1:32
psychological landscape that is just entirely murky, and we are
1:37
going to challenge the absolute core of how you view your own
1:40
goodness. We are looking at excerpts from
1:42
a philosophical text by Jonathan Edwards.
1:44
Specifically, we are going through a chapter from his work
1:46
titled The Nature of True Virtue, and the section we are
1:49
scrutinizing today asks a single staggering question.
1:53
Does all human love arise from self love?
1:56
Which I mean, at first glance that sounds like the perspective
1:59
of a bitter cynic If. That sound a bit bleak.
2:01
But Edwards does not operate like a cynic.
2:04
He operates more like a like a surgeon.
2:07
He doesn't just accept the standard Hallmark card
2:10
definitions of love or selfishness, he strips them down
2:13
to the studs. He really does.
2:15
And I am promising you right now, the thought experiments we
2:18
are about to run over the next hour or so will make you rethink
2:22
your own gratitude, your own anger, and just the basic
2:25
affection you have for your family.
2:27
So to figure out if all love is self love, Edwards says we first
2:30
have to agree on what the term self Love Actually means.
2:32
OK, and he starts by setting up a bit of a trap.
2:35
He looks at the most common everyday definition people use,
2:38
which is simply a person's love of their own happiness.
2:43
A person's love of their own happiness.
2:45
I mean, it sounds so intuitive. People say it all the time.
2:48
Right, they will say, well you only bought that gift for your
2:50
mom because seeing her smile made you happy.
2:53
So. So it was self love.
2:54
Yeah, exactly. Wait, so why is that a trap?
2:56
Edwards points out that this definition is hopelessly
2:59
ambiguous. The flaw hinges entirely on how
3:02
you interpret the phrase his own.
3:05
Let me see if I can guess where he's going with this.
3:08
Does he mean that if his own happiness just translates to
3:12
like, loving whatever pleases you, then it is a completely
3:16
meaningless statement? Spot on.
3:18
Because obviously you cannot love something that displeases
3:21
you. That is a contradiction.
3:23
That is precisely the logical trap.
3:25
If you take the phrase universally, self love just
3:27
means a person loving whatever is pleasing to them, right?
3:30
If you like something, you are pleased by it.
3:33
It doesn't matter if that thing is your own private bank, bank
3:35
account, the taste of a good pizza, or, you know, the
3:38
financial success of your neighbor.
3:39
Yeah, if self love just means loving what you love, then yes,
3:42
by definition, all love is self love.
3:45
But Edwards argues this broad definition is entirely useless
3:49
for understanding human motives. It is a circular argument.
3:52
It is like saying I choose what I choose because I am capable of
3:56
choosing. Yes, I was reading through his
3:57
notes on this and an analogy popped into my head.
4:01
Well, serious. Saying we love things because we
4:03
have a capacity to be pleased is like saying a car turns left
4:07
because it has a steering wheel. Oh, that is good.
4:09
Right. I mean, yes, the steering wheel
4:11
is the mechanism that allows the car to turn is a true statement,
4:14
but it tells us absolutely nothing about the intention of
4:17
the driver. Why did the driver choose to
4:20
turn left toward the hospital instead of right toward the
4:23
beach? The steering wheel is completely
4:26
neutral. That analogy captures the
4:28
mechanics perfectly. The steering wheel allows for
4:31
the turn just like the human will allows for preference.
4:35
Edwards points out that a tree or a stone doesn't love or hate
4:38
anything. Because it doesn't have a
4:40
steering wheel, so to speak. Precisely.
4:42
A stone cannot prefer one outcome over another because it
4:45
lacks the mechanism. Humans have the mechanism, we
4:48
have the capacity to be pleased. But the mirror, well, the simple
4:53
existence of that capacity does not explain why your love locks
4:56
onto a specific object. The broad definition of self
5:00
love cannot answer the crucial question, why does the good of
5:03
your neighbor make you happy rather than the harm of your
5:07
neighbor? Hold on because I know people
5:08
will immediately push back on this with the concept of cause
5:11
and effect. OK, what is the pushback?
5:13
I hear this argument all the time.
5:15
Someone will say, look, when my friend gets a promotion, I feel
5:18
A rush of happiness. My happiness is tied up in their
5:21
happiness. Therefore I love them because
5:24
their success brings me pleasure.
5:26
Yes. The classic counter argument.
5:28
That proves my love for them is rooted in my own self love.
5:32
Edwards actually anticipated that specific objection, and he
5:36
points out that this logic gets the sequence of events
5:38
completely backward. Backward how?
5:41
It takes the effect and mistakenly labels it as the
5:45
cause. Wait, I want to make sure I am
5:47
following the timeline here. If my friend's success makes me
5:50
happy, it really feels like their success is the cause.
5:53
What is Edward saying? The actual sequences.
5:55
He argues that your love for the person is the cause of your
5:58
delight in their happiness. The inclination, the affection,
6:02
has to exist in your heart long before you can ever receive
6:05
gratification from their success.
6:07
The pleasure you feel is the result of the love, not the root
6:10
of it. Oh I see.
6:12
If I do not care about the person in the 1st place, their
6:15
success does absolutely nothing for me.
6:17
Precisely. Think about your own social
6:19
media feed for a second. Imagine you are scrolling and
6:23
you see that a random stranger in another country just won the
6:28
lottery or got a massive promotion at a company you have
6:32
never heard of. You would just scroll right past
6:34
it. Right.
6:35
You probably feel nothing. Maybe a tiny, fleeting
6:38
acknowledgement of good for them, but no real joy.
6:42
Now imagine your absolute best friend calls you crying tears of
6:45
joy because they just got the promotion they've been working
6:47
toward for five years. Your heart leaps.
6:50
You are thrilled. Why does one event bring intense
6:52
joy and the other brings nothing?
6:54
The external event is identical. Someone got a promotion?
6:58
The difference is the prior affection.
7:00
That prior benevolence is the trigger.
7:02
Your heart was already united to your friend, right?
7:04
Right. As Edwards puts it, you look
7:06
upon them as yourself, and so you instinctively look upon
7:09
their happiness as your own. That existing love is the reason
7:13
their success pleases you. So the love has to be there
7:15
first. Yes.
7:17
Therefore, claiming that you love your friend because their
7:19
happiness makes you happy is logically upside down the
7:23
mechanism of being pleased. It doesn't explain the origin of
7:26
the love. OK, so if this first overly
7:29
broad definition of self love is a logical dead end, we have to
7:33
look for more surgical definition.
7:34
They do. If self love is not just having
7:37
a will and liking things, what is the actual definition Edwards
7:41
operates from? He moves to how the phrase is
7:44
actually used in everyday language.
7:46
He defines self love as a person's regard for their
7:48
confined, private self. Their confined private self.
7:51
Yes, it is a love for oneself with respect to private
7:54
interest. Private interest?
7:56
That sounds like a legal term honestly.
7:58
What goes into that bucket? I'm assuming it is the basic
8:01
survival stuff, avoiding physical pain, finding food,
8:04
getting enough sleep. It definitely includes those
8:07
obvious physical appetites and pleasures, but Edwards extends
8:10
private interest heavily into the psychological and social.
8:13
Realms. Oh, OK.
8:14
Like what? Private interest includes our
8:16
natural disposition to be pleased when others honor and
8:19
love us, and crucially, it includes our intense visceral
8:22
displeasure when others hate us or treat us with contempt.
8:26
This specific point in the source material really caught my
8:29
attention when I was preparing for this.
8:32
He spends a massive amount of time unpacking this aversion to
8:35
contempt. He does.
8:36
It is a central pillar for him. He observes that human beings
8:39
often dread contempt more than they dread physical death.
8:42
Which sounds like hyperbole at first.
8:45
It totally sounds like an exaggeration, but when you
8:47
really look at human behavior, it tracks perfectly.
8:50
People will do anything to avoid being shamed.
8:53
The theological weight Edwards applies to this concept is
8:56
staggering. He asks the reader to run a
8:59
mental simulation. OK, imagine the absolute misery
9:02
of universal abhorrence. Imagine being completely hated,
9:05
despised and rejected by all intelligent beings everywhere.
9:09
Oh man, it is an overwhelmingly suffocating thought.
9:13
Just total isolation and hatred. He takes it even further,
9:16
bringing in his framework of the Deity, He says to imagine living
9:20
constantly in the presence of a being incomprehensibly great,
9:23
and living continually in the midst of clear, strong
9:26
manifestations of his hatred and contempt.
9:29
Wow. For Edwards, this is the
9:31
ultimate paralyzing nightmare of the private self.
9:35
The dread of this universal contempt is an incredibly potent
9:38
force in human psychology. It is the absolute core of
9:42
private interest. Our self love is constantly
9:45
aggressively exercised in avoiding this fate.
9:48
You know, if we pull this 18th century concept into the present
9:51
day, it maps onto our reality. Florida State.
9:55
Oh, absolutely. Think about this innate
9:57
biological terror of universal contempt and look at the modern
10:01
digital landscape. Yeah, we see people terrified of
10:03
making a single mistake online. Yes, the anxiety is palpable.
10:07
When we talk about the fear of being cancelled or universally
10:10
shunned on social media, isn't that just a modern digital
10:13
manifestation of this exact instinct Edwards is talking
10:16
about? The parallel is incredibly
10:18
tight. The mechanics of human
10:20
psychology haven't changed, only the speed and scale of the
10:23
technology have. In the 18th century, the village
10:26
or the town was the boundary of your social existence.
10:31
Being shunned by the village meant social ruin, and often it
10:34
meant literal physical starvation because you relied on
10:37
that community to survive. Because you could not just move
10:40
to another town easily. Right today, the village is
10:43
global. The digital sphere can manifest
10:46
A unified, deafening voice of contempt within hours.
10:49
So I mean spot on when you see a celebrity or a brand going
10:54
through a massive PR crisis issuing those panicked apologies
10:57
on an iPhone Notes app. Oh, the notes app, Apologies.
11:01
Or when you see an everyday person conforming their opinions
11:03
to whatever the loudest voice in the room is saying, they aren't
11:06
necessarily doing it out of a noble realization of truth.
11:08
No, they are terrified. We are watching Edward's
11:11
definition of self love in real time action.
11:14
It is the defense of the confined private self against
11:16
the terror of universal abhorrence.
11:19
The heart rate spikes, the palm sweat.
11:21
It is a biological survival response to social contempt.
11:25
And that defense mechanism is the true engine of self love.
11:28
It is the preservation of the private self status, comfort and
11:32
safety within the group. OK, so we have a solid working
11:35
definition now. Self love is the protection and
11:38
elevation of the confined private self, largely driven by
11:42
the fear of contempt. Correct, but this leads to a
11:45
massive friction point. I can accept that avoiding
11:48
cancel culture is self-interest, but how does this private
11:51
interest translate into the things we consider beautiful and
11:54
good? What about loving our friends?
11:57
If my friend is constantly kind to me and I love them back, is
12:00
Edward seriously claiming that is just selfishness?
12:04
This is where his analysis gets highly uncomfortable.
12:06
I am bracing myself. He argues that loving those who
12:08
love us, and conversely hating those who hate us, is simply a
12:11
natural consequence of this private self love.
12:14
There is no higher moral principle required to produce
12:17
that reaction. Let me push back on that because
12:19
it feels incredibly reductive. Go ahead.
12:22
Are you saying there is zero true virtue in me loving a
12:26
friend who goes out of their way to support me?
12:27
Like, no goodness in that at all.
12:29
To understand how he arrives at that conclusion, we need to look
12:32
at the physics comparison he uses.
12:34
He compares this social reciprocity to the law of
12:37
gravity. Gravity, Yes.
12:39
Edwards points out that there is no absolute metaphysical
12:42
necessity that bodies with mass must gravitate toward the center
12:46
of the earth. You can easily imagine a
12:49
universe where physics works differently without creating a
12:51
logical contradiction. But in our specific universe,
12:55
the author of Nature has established a certain order, a
12:59
beautiful, consistent proportion in the laws of physics.
13:02
So gravity is just an arbitrary rule put in place to keep the
13:05
physical world functioning in an orderly way.
13:08
And Edwards applies this exact same framework to human
13:11
affection. Just as the earth attracts
13:13
physical objects to its center, self love naturally attracts us
13:17
to those who align with our private interests.
13:19
OK, a person loving those who are on their side, who promote
13:22
their comfort, and who validate their ego, is acting according
13:26
to a psychological law of nature identical to a rock falling to
13:29
the ground when you drop it. Man, that is a very heavy
13:32
concept to swallow. If loving those who love us is
13:37
akin to gravity, then it requires absolutely no moral
13:40
effort. It just operates automatically
13:42
in the background. Precisely.
13:43
You don't praise a rock for falling when you let go of it.
13:46
You don't call the rock virtuous for hitting the dirt.
13:48
Right, you don't say. Good job, Rock, for obeying the
13:51
laws of physics. Exactly.
13:53
It is just blindly following a law of attraction.
13:57
Edwards says that by a similar order of nature, a person's love
14:00
for those who love them is nothing more than a certain
14:03
expression of self love. The mechanism of self-interest
14:06
fully explains the reaction. Therefore, he concludes, there
14:10
is no more true virtue in a person loving their friends
14:13
entirely from self love than there is in the principle of
14:16
self love itself. Let's ground this in a daily
14:19
interaction. If I buy my best friend a coffee
14:21
today because they listen to me vent about a terrible day at
14:24
work yesterday, Edwards is saying I am just functioning
14:27
under the law of relational gravity.
14:29
My private self felt supported and validated by their listening
14:32
ear, so my private self automatically reacts with
14:36
reciprocal support in the form of a latte to keep that
14:39
beneficial relationship intact. That is the argument.
14:42
It is an automatic balancing of the scales.
14:44
It is highly functional. It is pleasant, it keeps human
14:47
society running smoothly and prevents us from destroying each
14:50
other. But it does not require a higher
14:53
divine moral principle. It feels almost transactional.
14:56
In a psychological sense it is. It is just the machinery of the
15:00
private self doing what it is designed to do.
15:03
Secure during alliances that benefit its own interests.
15:06
I can hear people yelling at their audio players right now.
15:08
Oh, I'm sure. And honestly, Edwards's critics
15:12
raised a massive counter argument to this exact point.
15:15
They said OK, fine, maybe casual friendship and buying coffees is
15:19
just mutual self-interest. But what about the intense moral
15:22
passions? What about deep gratitude?
15:24
What about burning anger at injustice?
15:27
Yes, the critics argued that these intense passions require a
15:31
moral sense. They believe that humans possess
15:34
an innate, noble sense of public benevolence, a genuine love for
15:38
the public good. Right.
15:40
They argued that this high minded moral sense is what
15:42
triggers gratitude when we see someone being remarkably kind
15:46
and anger when we see someone being malicious.
15:49
And the critics asked a really specific, clever question to try
15:52
and prove their point. They did.
15:54
They said if private self love is the only thing driving us,
15:57
why aren't we angry at inanimate objects?
16:00
It is a great question. If a massive hurricane destroys
16:03
my house, it hurts my private interest severely.
16:06
If my garden produces a massive crop of vegetables, it benefits
16:10
my private interest immensely. Yet I do not feel burning moral
16:14
anger at the hurricane, and I do not feel deep moral gratitude
16:17
toward the dirt in the garden. We only feel these specific
16:21
moral passions toward other humans.
16:23
The critics thought this was the silver bullet to defeat Edwards.
16:26
They assumed that because we only react to humans with
16:29
gratitude and anger, it proves we have a higher moral sense
16:32
evaluating human virtue and vice.
16:34
Yeah, it seems pretty convincing.
16:36
But Edwards methodically dismantles this assumption using
16:39
their own logic against them. How does he flip it?
16:42
Because on the surface, the critics point makes total sense.
16:45
He flips the scenario by looking at the public good.
16:48
If anger and gratitude genuinely arose from a noble love for the
16:52
public good, as the critics claim, then we would be angry at
16:56
inanimate objects that hurt the public.
16:59
Think about a massive earthquake that wipes out a city.
17:01
It is utterly devastating to the public good.
17:04
If our moral sense is truly dialed into public benevolence,
17:07
we should feel intense moral outrage at the tectonic plates.
17:11
But we don't. We feel sorrow.
17:13
We feel grief, maybe frustration, but not the burning
17:16
moral anger we feel when a corrupt politician steals from
17:19
that same city. That is fascinating.
17:21
We reserve the moral outrage for a human who causes a fraction of
17:25
the damage the earthquake caused.
17:26
Exactly. And Edwards explains why self
17:29
love reacts very differently to beings with a will, beings who
17:33
possess the capacity to choose to help or hurt us, compared to
17:36
mindless inanimate objects. So it is about the intention
17:39
behind the action. Yes, the author of Nature
17:42
ordered things so that our self love extends itself toward being
17:46
similar to us. When a person uses their
17:49
understanding and their will to exert themselves in our favor,
17:52
our self love reacts to that intentional choice.
17:55
We recognize the intention. A hurricane has no intention.
17:59
It cannot comply with or defy the inclinations of our self
18:02
love. So the difference in our
18:03
reaction is not caused by a high minded love for the public.
18:07
It is simply our self love recognizing another, self love
18:10
interacting with it. It is a collision of wills.
18:12
Yes, and to explain why we want to return favor for favor and
18:16
hurt for hurt, Edwards introduces a concept that is
18:19
vital for understanding his entire philosophy.
18:21
Here. He calls it secondary beauty or
18:23
a sense of desert. OK, secondary beauty.
18:25
That sounds like an aesthetic term, not a moral. 1 What does
18:27
he mean by? That it is an aesthetic term.
18:29
Secondary beauty is a sense of proportion, uniformity, and
18:32
harmony. It feels just.
18:34
It feels symmetrical to return love for love and to return hurt
18:37
for hurt. Symmetrical.
18:38
Yes. If someone uses their will to
18:41
benefit us, it seems natural and proportional that we should use
18:44
our will to benefit them. If they use their will to oppose
18:48
us and cause us pain, it feels aesthetically proportional that
18:51
we should desire they suffer in the exact same way we suffered.
18:54
I think I understand. Are you saying we appreciate a
18:57
balanced moral Ledger the same way we appreciate a perfectly
19:01
symmetrical painting hanging on a wall?
19:03
That is a brilliant way to conceptualize it.
19:05
If someone hits me, I want to hit the back.
19:07
Not because of universal justice, but because returning
19:10
the blow balances the Ledger. It's like straightening a
19:13
crooked picture frame. It is aesthetic satisfaction,
19:16
not actual goodness. Yes, that solves the entire
19:19
difficulty of the critics objection.
19:21
We react to humans and not hurricanes because returning a
19:25
favor to a human creates a metrical balance of wills.
19:28
There is no balance to strike with a hurricane.
19:30
You cannot straighten the picture frame with a storm.
19:33
The sense of justice, the sense of what someone deserves, is
19:36
entirely different from a true unselfish love for virtue
19:40
itself. It is just the mind seeking
19:42
symmetry. I want you to think about this
19:44
in your own life right now. Pause and examine the last time
19:48
you lost your temper. Think about the physical
19:51
sensation, the thoughts racing through your mind when you were
19:53
furious. It is an uncomfortable exercise.
19:56
Was that anger truly, honestly driven by a violation of
19:59
universal goodness? Or, if you are being brutally
20:02
honest with yourself, was it driven by a violation of your
20:06
own private boundaries, your own personal expectations, or your
20:10
own confined interests? Did you want universal justice
20:13
to be upheld, or did you just want the scales balanced in your
20:16
favor because your private self felt slighted?
20:20
It forces a highly uncomfortable level of self reflection, and
20:24
Edwards doesn't stop there. To completely seal the argument
20:27
that gratitude and anger do not require any sense of public
20:30
benevolence, he presents two of the most vivid thought
20:33
experiments in his entire text. Well, these thought experiments
20:37
are incredible. They completely shattered the
20:38
idea that gratitude and anger are proof of a noble spirit.
20:42
Let's paint the scene for the first one.
20:43
Go for it. Scenario number one.
20:46
Imagine a mutinous pirate crew on the high seas.
20:50
They have violently taken over a ship.
20:52
Their goals are entirely selfish, destructive, and
20:56
murderous. But they discover that one of
20:58
the crew members is a traitor. He has secretly arranged to turn
21:02
them all over to the authorities at the next port.
21:05
OK, I am picturing. It when the pirate crew finds
21:07
out about this betrayal, they are furiously, violently angry
21:11
at the trader. Now hold that image of the
21:12
furious pirates and let's look at scenario #2 imagine a gang of
21:16
robbers. They have been terrorizing the
21:19
countryside, hoarding stolen goods.
21:21
That's. Terrible people.
21:22
Yes, the local police finally tracked down their secret
21:25
hideout and are preparing to raid the place and arrest
21:28
everyone. But right before the raid
21:30
happens, someone tips off the robbers.
21:32
A stranger gives them a warning, allowing them to escape into the
21:35
night with all their loot. OK, the robbers feel intense,
21:38
overwhelming gratitude toward the tipster.
21:41
They even hand him a huge bag of stolen money as a thank you.
21:44
OK, let's analyze the mechanics of these two scenarios.
21:47
In both cases, the concept of the public good is completely
21:52
absent from the minds of people feeling the emotion.
21:55
In fact, it is worse than absent.
21:57
The public good is in direct opposition to their feelings.
22:00
The public good would be best served if the trader succeeded
22:03
in turning the pirates over to the law.
22:06
The public good would be served if the police caught the robbers
22:09
and recovered the stolen goods. Right.
22:11
The actions that would genuinely benefit society are the very
22:14
actions these criminal groups are reacting against, yet the
22:18
moral passions of anger and gratitude are overwhelmingly
22:21
present. Very present.
22:22
The pirates feel genuine, burning moral anger at the
22:26
betrayal. It is not fake anger.
22:28
They are livid. The robbers feel genuine warm
22:31
gratitude for the tip off. The conclusion we are forced to
22:34
draw here is undeniable. If pirates and robbers, people
22:38
actively, violently working against the public good, can
22:40
feel intense anger at betrayal and intense gratitude for a
22:43
favor, then these emotions cannot possibly be rooted in a
22:46
noble love for the public. It just shatters the critics
22:49
argument completely. These intense moral passions are
22:52
entirely driven by the most private, concentrated form of
22:55
self love. Defending one's own skin,
22:58
protecting one's own I'll gotten gains with absolutely no regard
23:02
for universal right and wrong. The pirates are mad because
23:05
their private interests are threatened.
23:07
The robbers are grateful because their private interests are
23:10
preserved. It has nothing to do with
23:12
virtue. Edwards adds a very sharp
23:14
observation from daily life to back this up.
23:16
He says look at human experience.
23:19
If the passion of anger truly came from a benevolent temper,
23:23
if we got angry because we love the public so much and hated to
23:26
see it harmed, then the sweetest, most benevolent, most
23:29
public spirited people in your city would be the angriest
23:32
people you know. That is hilarious to think
23:34
about. Their immense love for humanity
23:36
would cause them to be in a constant state of volcanic rage
23:39
at every injustice they see. But observation proves the exact
23:42
opposite is true. Yes, experience consistently
23:45
shows that the less benevolence people have, the more contrary
23:49
and selfish their temper is, the more they are disposed to anger
23:53
and deep resentment of perceived injuries.
23:56
Anger is the alarm system of the private self, not the defense
24:00
mechanism of universal virtue. OK, so the logic hold up.
24:04
Self love handles our immediate survival.
24:07
It handles our friendships through the reciprocal gravity
24:09
we talked about earlier. It handles our anger when we are
24:12
crossed and our gratitude when someone saves our skin.
24:15
Just like the pirates and the robbers.
24:18
But I have a new question and this is where it gets tricky
24:19
for. Me.
24:20
OK, let's hear it. How does Edwards explain our
24:22
preferences for things that do not impact us at all?
24:25
Give me an example of what you mean.
24:27
Why do we like good guys in history books?
24:30
If I am reading a biography of a generous leader who lived 1000
24:33
years ago, his actions do not put money in my pocket.
24:36
He cannot protect my reputation. Or.
24:39
Why do we root for the generous self sacrificing hero in a
24:42
fictional movie? We gain 0 personal benefit from
24:46
a fictional character's charity. If all love is self love, how
24:50
can self-interest account for us approving A virtue from a
24:53
massive distance? It is a vital question.
24:57
If the private self is the engine, how does it react to
25:00
things outside its immediate sphere?
25:02
Edwards explains this through a psychological mechanism called
25:05
the Association of ideas. Wait, association of ideas?
25:08
Is that like Pavlov's dog? We've just been conditioned to
25:11
drool when we see a good historical figure because
25:14
society rang a bell? It is very similar to that kind
25:16
of condition. Yes, we approve of virtues like
25:19
meekness, charity and justice because generally speaking,
25:22
human experience proves that these traits tend to benefit
25:24
mankind. OK, our self love is highly
25:27
observant. It recognizes a pattern.
25:29
A world filled with meek, charitable, just people is a
25:32
much safer, more pleasant world for our private selves to exist
25:35
in. Overtime, our minds form a tight
25:38
association between those character traits and our own
25:40
safety and benefit. To make this concrete, Edwards
25:43
brings up a fascinating analogy about a child and a snake in his
25:47
text. Can you walk through that?
25:49
Imagine a child who has been taught extensively by their
25:52
parents about the deadly nature of a rattlesnake.
25:55
They know it causes severe pain and death.
25:58
Naturally. Because of self love, the basic
26:01
desire to avoid physical pain, the child develops a strong
26:05
instinctual aversion to live rattlesnakes.
26:08
Now show that child a drawing or a detailed picture of a
26:12
rattlesnake. In a book, just a picture.
26:14
Just a picture. The child will feel A rush of
26:16
disgust and maybe even fear looking at the picture, even
26:20
though their logical brain knows the ink on the page cannot bite
26:22
them. The image triggers the survival
26:24
response. Conversely, show the child a
26:27
painting of a sweet fruit they enjoy eating, or a bird whose
26:30
song they like listening to. The child will feel affection
26:33
for the picture. The child knows they cannot eat
26:35
the painted fruit. They know the painted bird
26:37
cannot sing. But the association of ideas is
26:40
so strong, so deeply ingrained, that the image itself triggers
26:45
the affection or the disgust based purely on the self Love's
26:49
past experiences with those qualities in the real world.
26:52
This is a brilliant way to explain how we make historical
26:54
judgments. We hate malice in a historical
26:57
figure, say a tyrannical dictator from centuries ago, in
27:01
the exact same way that child hates a picture of a snake.
27:04
Our self love knows that the poison of malice is highly
27:07
dangerous to human society. It is dangerous to our private
27:10
interests for malice to thrive anywhere.
27:13
So when we see malice represented, even safely at a
27:16
distance in a history book, we reflexively reject it.
27:20
We are rejecting the poison. And we love liberality and
27:22
fortitude and a fictional hero on a movie screen because our
27:25
self love subconsciously recognizes our own potential
27:28
need for charity or protection. Oh, that makes sense.
27:30
We know that in the real world, the vulnerable peculiarly esteem
27:35
fortitude and generosity because those traits represent the exact
27:38
things they need for survival and comfort.
27:40
We applaud the character because the character's traits fall
27:43
perfectly in line with the natural tendency of self love to
27:46
seek safety and support. It is almost like our brain is
27:50
running a subconscious simulation.
27:52
We sit in a movie theater, we see a Jenny's act on the screen,
27:55
and our brain simulates. If that person were in my life,
27:59
I would benefit. Therefore, I approve of this
28:02
trait. That is a great way to put it.
28:03
We think we are making a lofty, objective moral judgement about
28:08
the nature of goodness, but we are actually just running a
28:11
sophisticated risk assessment program for our private selves.
28:14
That is precisely how Edwards views it.
28:16
We naturally approve of the virtues that agree with our
28:19
interests the most, according to our various conditions in life.
28:23
A person living in extreme poverty will most highly approve
28:26
of liberality and generosity. Because they need it the most.
28:29
Yes, people in lower social conditions will be especially
28:32
enamored with a condescending, accessible temper in the rich
28:35
and powerful. Our current station in life
28:38
dictates which traits our self love finds most necessary, and
28:41
thus which traits we most loudly applaud as virtuous.
28:45
OK, if self love makes us approve of distant virtues
28:48
through this association of ideas, how does it shape our
28:51
societal disgust towards specific vices?
28:55
Because society has a long list of things it considers odious
28:58
that are not necessarily violent crimes like murder or theft, but
29:02
rather personal failings. Greatly character flaws.
29:05
Yeah, I am thinking of things like chronic laziness, cowardice
29:07
or severe drunkenness. Edwards turns his attention
29:10
specifically to those kinds of vices, drunkenness, gluttony,
29:14
cowardice, and sloth. How do these become universally
29:17
odious if not through a divine, objective moral compass?
29:21
He circles back to the concept we discussed earlier, the dread
29:24
of contempt. The fear of being hated by the
29:26
group. Exactly.
29:26
Self love absolutely abhors contempt.
29:29
Over time, human society associates certain vices with
29:31
what Edwards calls littleness. Littleness.
29:35
That is an interesting choice of words.
29:37
What makes a vice little? By littleness he means a lack of
29:41
ability, a weakness of mind, or an insufficiency to produce any
29:45
considerable effects among mankind.
29:48
Think about someone given over entirely to sloth, sitting on
29:51
the couch all day, refusing to contribute.
29:53
Just playing video games or watching TV constantly.
29:56
Their influence is contracted into a very narrow sphere.
29:59
They become of less weight, more insignificant, and things of
30:02
little way are naturally little accounted of by society.
30:05
They do not add to the tribe's safety or prosperity.
30:08
So. Society looks at these traits
30:10
and finds it in its collective best interest to treat them with
30:13
contempt. Because a society full of
30:15
cowardly, slothful people will collapse, Yes.
30:18
These qualities are hurtful to the functioning and survival of
30:21
human society. Therefore, a society agrees to
30:23
penalize them with the social weapon of contempt.
30:26
And because our private self love dreads contempt more than
30:29
almost anything else, we develop a strong visceral moral disgust
30:33
for these vices. We avoid them entirely to avoid
30:36
being treated with contempt ourselves.
30:38
I want to spend some time on a mechanism Edwards raises here
30:41
which carries massive implications for how we raise
30:44
children. He talks about the role of
30:46
education and upbringing. He argues that this kind of
30:49
approbation and dislike, which we have established is just the
30:52
joint influence of self love and the association of ideas, is
30:56
vastly heightened by education. It is the means of a strong,
31:00
close, almost unbreakable association in our minds.
31:04
We are taught from infancy what society praises and what society
31:07
despises. The child learns very quickly
31:10
which behaviors result in the warmth of social approval and
31:12
which result in the coldness of social contempt.
31:15
Let's play this out. A parent catches a child
31:18
stealing a toy from a playmate. The parent scolds the child,
31:21
maybe punishes them, and expresses deep disappointment.
31:25
The parent thinks they're teaching the child a lesson in
31:27
universal justice. What is actually happening in
31:29
the child's brain? The child experiences the
31:31
psychological pain of the parent's displeasure, the
31:34
contempt. The child's self love registers
31:37
that stealing equals social isolation and pain.
31:40
Over years of this conditioning, the child develops a strong
31:43
aversion to stealing. Yes, the association is locked
31:46
in. This means that what feels to us
31:49
as adults like an innate, unshakable moral compass might
31:53
actually be a highly trained survival instinct dictated
31:58
entirely by self love. It is a radical reframing of
32:01
human behavior. We think we are feeling the pure
32:04
light of universal morality guiding us away from sloth or
32:07
cowardice, when in reality we are just feeling the heavy hand
32:11
of societal conditioning designed to keep our private
32:14
selves safe from social rejection.
32:16
Edwards is arguing that there is no particular moral virtue
32:19
whatsoever, not a single one in the realm of common morality
32:22
that doesn't in some way come to have some kind of approbation
32:25
from self love without the influence of any truly virtuous,
32:28
unselfish principle. That is just just angry.
32:31
The mechanics of the private self, combined with the fear of
32:33
contempt and the association of ideas taught through education,
32:36
are powerful enough to build an entire highly complex system of
32:39
functional morality, but it is a morality built entirely on the
32:43
foundation of private interest. Think about a habit or a
32:46
lifestyle choice in others that you instinctively look down
32:49
upon. Think of the guy who plays video
32:52
games 12 hours a day or someone who is constantly seeking
32:56
attention online. You probably feel a sense of
32:59
moral superiority when you observe.
33:00
It Oh, we all do. Are you truly judging that habit
33:03
against a universal, unselfish standard of goodness?
33:07
Or do you simply associate that habit with a lack of status, a
33:11
lack of influence and littleness?
33:14
Are you rejecting the vice because it is objectively evil,
33:18
or are you rejecting it because yourself love is terrified of
33:21
being associated with the contempt that society pours on
33:24
that vice. It requires A brutal level of
33:26
honesty to admit that our high horses are often just defense
33:29
mechanisms. We have covered a vast amount of
33:31
psychological and philosophical ground today, and we have picked
33:34
apart a lot of comfortable assumptions.
33:37
Let's trace the logic of Edward's argument from the top
33:39
to see the full picture of what he is claiming.
33:41
We started by discarding the useless definition of self love
33:45
as simply having a preference or a steering wheel.
33:48
We moved to the real engine of human behavior, the confined
33:53
private self, which is relentlessly driven by a desire
33:56
for honor and a terrifying biological dread of universal
33:59
contempt. Then we examine how this private
34:02
interest creates relational gravity.
34:05
It causes us to naturally love those who love us and support
34:08
those who support us. We realize this requires no
34:10
moral effort at all. It is just the machinery of
34:13
nature balancing the scales to keep society functioning.
34:16
We addressed the critics who claimed our intense gratitude
34:18
and our burning anger prove we have a noble spirit.
34:21
But then we looked at the pirates and the robbers and
34:24
found out that criminals feel the exact same moral passions
34:26
when their private interests are helped or hindered, Right?
34:29
We discovered that our appreciation for historical
34:32
heroes and fictional good guys is just our self love, approving
34:35
of traits that make the world safer for us, acting exactly
34:38
like a child recognizing a picture of a sweet fruit.
34:41
And finally, we saw how the fear of contempt drilled into us by
34:45
early education and societal conditioning creates our disgust
34:48
toward vices that signal weakness or insignificance.
34:52
Self love disguises itself at every single turn.
34:55
It wears the mask of warm friendship, the mask of
34:58
righteous justice, and the mask of moral.
35:00
Outrage. It is an airtight system.
35:02
The mechanics are flawless. Every natural motive we have
35:05
investigated today, no matter how noble it appears on the
35:08
surface, traces its roots firmly back to the soil of
35:11
self-interest, which leaves us with a massive unresolved
35:15
tension. Indeed, if everything we have
35:17
discussed our natural love for our support of friends, our warm
35:20
gratitude for unexpected kindness, our burning anger at
35:23
societal injustice, and even our approval of charity and others,
35:26
if all of these are entirely traceable back to the intricate
35:28
automatic mechanics of self love, what would actual
35:32
unselfish virtue look? Like that is the ultimate
35:34
question this leaves us with. Is it even possible for a human
35:37
being operating with a natural human will to produce a single
35:41
action or feel a single affection that is totally free
35:44
from private interest? It is something to ponder long
35:47
after this conversation ends. If our common morality is just a
35:51
highly sophisticated survival strategy engineered by self
35:54
love, then true virtue must be something entirely alien to our
35:58
natural inclinations. It would require an affection
36:01
that doesn't terminate on the private self at all.
36:04
It really makes you rethink the clean, bright lines we talked
36:07
about at the very beginning of the show.
36:09
The X-ray machine is broken and the Muddy Waters of our own
36:11
motives are staring right back at us.
36:14
Thank you for joining us for this deep dive.
36:15
Keep questioning your assumptions, keep looking
36:18
beneath the surface of your own actions, and we will catch you
36:21
on the next one.