Deep Moral Foundations: The Keys to Stable and Prosperous Political Economies

The quotation upon which this paper is based is a tightly packed, concise statement, the content of which could be richly mined in various directions. The relationship and interaction that exists between the political economy and the moral life is at the quotation's core, however, and is the concept which this paper hopes to explore.

In the quote, there is a presupposition that a political economy has a foundation, something which is not selfevident to those who unthinkingly divide society into only political and economic spheres. The very idea that the political-economic order relies on any foundation whatsoever is a concept as overlooked as it is important. The presumption that political systems and economic orders are self-creating, and that they themselves protect the common good and regulate commercial exchange, is an erroneous ideal. In reality, these two spheres of human activity depend upon a multitude of factors outside of their control to even come into existence. One could say that political economies owe their existence and subsequent form to the particular conditions which precede their establishment, conditions fundamental to the creation of the "preexisting social bonds that make governments and markets possible."¹

The whole range of fundamental preconditions needed to form a society healthy enough to support a political economy create the foundation of that society, not those institutions which are better said to be its effluence. As with all other foundations, this one, too, must be constructed previous to that of the structures which rest upon it, making it both a separate entity and yet something absolutely vital to all that comes after it. Because it inherently serves as an independent and a supporting structure at the same time, an eroding foundation can cause any structure resting upon it, regardless of that structure's own particular integrity, to collapse. Highly developed, complex economies and governments with long histories of success need not, then, continue on their paths of stability solely because of well-established records of accomplishment. If the factors which precipitated their formation and growth lie outside the control of the governmental and economic institutions themselves, then those same factors could lead to the end of those same institutions despite the latter's relative health. The foundation of a society is of the highest importance, then, in that the survival of innumerable other goods, including political and economic ones, are linked to its soundness.

The quotation is correct in recognizing that this all-important societal foundation is a moral one, and a moral foundation concerned with the fulfillment of duties rather than the mere satisfaction of appetites. To state that the satisfaction of appetite is not an adequate moral foundation borders, in fact, on being tautologous. The satisfaction of an appetite like eating or drinking cannot stand opposite the fulfillment of duty as an opposing option in any moral decision because acts such as eating and drinking cannot be said, under normal conditions, to even be moral acts. A moral action can be called good precisely because it could have been called bad; that is, the possibility of choosing the good or the bad is part of what makes certain decisions moral ones. The choice to eat, drink, sleep, etc., is not a choice with options in the moral sense. To satisfy these appetites is actually a prerequisite to even being a moral agent, as only living human beings are such, and the negation of these appetites would cause the cessation of the moral agent, i.e. death.

Having posited that a moral foundation is fundamental to the establishment of a political economy, a look at what that foundation consists of is now in order. As stated in the quotation, the fulfillment of duties is at the heart of society's moral foundation, especially considering that the satisfaction of appetite normally does not even fall under the category of a moral action. The fulfillment of a duty is not in and of itself a virtue; rather, its end must be considered to determine its moral quality. It is not hard to imagine examples where a person would feel the duty to carry out an immoral act because of fear, a promise, a misguided conscience, a reward, etc. Contrariwise, the type of duty that fosters the acquisition of virtue is the duty directed towards a good end, whether it be God, self, or neighbor. Duty, then, can be a seedbed for virtue when the ends worked for are good ones.

The virtues cited in the quotation -- labor, patience, justice, peace, and self-denial -- along with others, are indeed good when done for good ends and can also be mainsprings of economical production. They not only bring order and peace into one's interior life, but also produce tangible benefits in the economic realm. The person who works patiently and diligently while denying himself some of life's small pleasures will produce more at a higher quality or serve more customers in a conscientious manner than the person who does not cultivate these or similar virtues. It would seem to go without saying that he who seeks to better himself rather than "find" himself will succeed in dominating the job he holds to such an extent that it cannot but reward his efforts very richly.

While virtue does produce goods in the economic realm, these goods are better understood to be a part of those things which "shall be added unto you" after first seeking the kingdom of God. It is in the fulfillment of religious duty that virtue truly finds its richest meaning. Pope John Paul II has written beautifully on the meaning of human work as a duty for every person, and sees in the myriad virtues found in hard work the true exaltation of the Christian vocation. He says that "man, created in the image of God, shares by his work in the image of the Creator and ... in a sense continues to develop that activity, and perfects it as he advances further and further in the discovery of the resources and values contained in the whole of creation."² He also writes that people "by their labor ... are unfolding the Creator's work ... and contributing by their personal industry to the realization in history of the divine plan."³ Seen thus, work acquires metaphysical significance. It is something much larger than a means of economic exchange. God Himself worked in creating the world, and people, by working, emulate that divine work and even continue it through their domination of nature. As people's manipulation of nature becomes more and more complex, they manifest to a greater and greater degree their dominion over it. Although this dominion can become more technological and removed from the actual resources of the earth itself, it nonetheless never moves outside of the mandate of Genesis to "subdue the earth." In fact, the more advanced this work, or dominion, becomes, the more man shows himself to be a son of God who, through his creation ex nihilo, dominates nature in an absolute way. There is no other way for people to subdue the earth apart from work, and by manipulating nature to their advantage, and utilizing the things of the earth for their own ends, people show their superiority to nature. To strive to be perfect as one's Creator is perfect is indeed seeking "first the kingdom of God." The things which "shall be added unto you" are the secondary, but no less real, economic advantages that proceed from this primary human duty to act in the image and likeness of God.

God expects us to delve into the secrets of nature; He expects us to cultivate great virtue and skill in discovering and unleashing the potentialities hidden in all of creation. The potentialities realized will then spur economic production, for if nature can be "harvested" even when people do not apply themselves to it with skill and virtue, all the greater will be the "harvest" when they do so:

Such is the relationship between virtue, subduing the earth, and economical production, and it is as applicable to technological societies as it is to agricultural ones.

To seek the kingdom of God is synonymous with seeking virtue. What a person does on earth has value precisely because it is a person who does it, not so much for what is produced. So while certain virtues lead to the accumulation of wealth, knowledge, and other human goods, these things are to be prized only secondarily. Of first import is the fact that these virtues are evidence of progress on the road to God. Even if they were not to produce tangible goods because of a faulty economy or a bad government, these virtues would not lose their essential value. What a person does matters because only a person is a source of virtue, and he is such because only he is truly free and only he is a genuine source of responsibility.

An unvirtuous society would not enjoy economic success despite the greatest of economic principles. Laziness, mendacity, disorder, selfindulgence, and like vices are both antithetical to the seeking of the kingdom of God and the basis for economic disaster. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that these vices are the basis for economic disaster precisely because they are antithetical to the seeking of the kingdom of God. This situation seems to point to the certitude that if a person seeks first the kingdom of the self through self-gratification, selfindulgence, selfinterest, etc. the necessaries of life will not only not be added unto him, but they may actually be subtracted. There is no merit in vice or the mere satisfaction of human appetites, neither in heaven nor on earth. Only living a religious life, especially in its moral precepts, will instill the virtues needed to produce economic gain as the superabundance of supernatural virtue.

There may be many who cultivate certain virtues solely for the economic benefits they produce, with no heed to their theological significance, but this in no way eradicates the virtues' theological connections or origins. Regarding only the economic gain associated with a virtue does not deny its religious origin, but only puts a limit on the value that the virtue has been allowed to have by he who has it. The virtue is not diminished, although he who is not aware of its other dimensions may be.

At a more macro level, political economies need people to guide them, and virtuous people are more likely to handle them well than those seeking merely to fulfill an appetite. Political economies should be at mankind's service. They themselves are blind and when put in the wrong hands can be vehicles for great harm. Utopian social projects, unmitigated greed, corruption, exploitation, and worse have led political economies to inflict great pain on those who were supposed to benefit from them. The things of the world are meant to be a tool to advance mankind, and if the "self" in self-government is unvirtuous there is no reason to expect that the government linked to it will be any different.

To conclude, having looked at how seeking to emulate the virtues of God, especially work, can lead to economic productivity, perhaps the final word should be on where a person learns to emulate God, as people are not "noble savages" hard-wired to do the good. We learn virtue, and the school where we learn is the family. The family is a microcosm of society, it is

The problem today is not so much children fleeing parents as parents fleeing children and responsibility. With the decline of the family comes the decline of virtue, the moral foundation essential to any political economy. If we want economic production we also want to do everything in our power to build up families, which are like millions of bricks in the superstructures which support political economies.

Michael Black is currently in his third year of theology at Mount Saint Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, where he is studying towards ordination to the Catholic priesthood. He graduated from Northwestern University in 1992 with a B.A. in American history and hopes to receive M.A. degrees in divinity and morals upon completing his seminary studies. He looks forward to serving the diocese of Rockford, Illinois, as a parish priest.