The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce

sweet love vs. interest 109The philosopher Michael Stocker notes that a psychological egotist of thesort commended in modern economics could get the pleasure from thethings lovers do, “have absorbing talks, make love, eat delicious meals, seeinteresting films, and so on, and so on,” but would not love: “For it is essentialto the very concept of love to care for the beloved....To the extent thatI act ...towards you with the final goal of getting pleasure . ..I do not actfor your sake. ...What is lacking in these theories is simply—or not sosimply—the person. For love, friendship, affection, fellow feeling, and communityall require that the other person be an essential part of what is valued.”5 And the beloved must be a living value in himself. If you love him outof pride or mere vanity he is reduced to a thing, a mirror, no person. Loveis therefore not the same thing as mere absorbing altruism. You need toexplain this to the economists and other utilitarians.Your mother loves you, in one restricted sense, for the altruistic pleasureyou provide to her. When you graduated from college she got utilitarianpleasure in two ways. First, she got some pleasure directly—that she is themother of such a brilliant child. It reflected on her own brilliance, you see,or on her own excellence in mothering. It added to her utility-account somepoints earned, straightforward pleasure, like frequent-flyer mileage.And, second, she got some pleasure indirectly, because you did so well—for yourself, to be sure, yet as a pleasure to her. It is not for your sake. It is asthough you were happy and accomplished for her. Even if no one else knewthat you had graduated, she would know, and know the material pleasureand higher satisfactions your education would give you, and would be gladfor her sake. It was “on her account,” as the revealingly bourgeois expressionsays. That is, she absorbs your utility into hers. If you are happy, she ishappy, but derivatively. It is a return on her capital investment in motherhood.It’s still a matter of points earned for her utility.Economists think this is a complete description of your mother’s love.Hallmark could make a card for the economist to send to his mother: “Mom,I maximize your utility.” The great Gary Becker of the University of Chicago,for example, seems to think in this fashion, as do his numerous followers.“Weassume that children have the same utility function as their parents,” Beckerwrote in a classic paper with Nigel Tomes,“and are produced without mating,or asexually. A given family then maintains its identity indefinitely, and its fortunescan be followed over as many generations as desired. Asexual reproductioncould be replaced without any effect on the analysis by perfect assortative