Rules and the Economics of Me

It is the contention of economists that man’s greatest impulse is the innate desire to do what is best for himself. No person will willingly choose something that is to their harm – at least, their harm as they perceive it. Rather, they search for ways to increase their own good, trading things of lesser value for things of greater.

I, person that I am, follow this model – perhaps more consciously than most… which brings us to a problem.

Duty... Ick. Bleck. The concept of duty has always been distasteful to me. That I should do something simply “because I ought to” flies in the face of my desire for my own good. My first question is generally something like, “Why ought I?” If the answer is not satisfactory – does not entail my good – you can forget me doing any such thing.

The only way to make the situation worse is to say, “Do it or else.” I’m not the sort to respond well to threats of force. My freedom from coercion is something I value above most personal comforts, so I’m willing to make the trade. I am, in fact, inclined to force the trade, just to make the statement that I will not be coerced.

So, how does this rebellious, Mill-loving, Kant-hating person survive in the world? Not just survive, but even be mistaken as a “goody-two-shoes” or even “sweet?” What gives this appearance of conformance?

Well, conformance itself, actually. Not that I give up on my own principles – because they’re not principles, per se. They are inclinations belonging to all people. I just have them in spades. No, the reason I conform is not duty, it is not coercion by power or force – it’s the only thing in the world strong (or weak?) enough to move me: love.

This love comes in two varieties. The first is that of other people – particularly those in authority – for me. Since they love me, I know that they care about my good too (and, hopefully, know it better than I do). If they are sufficiently trustworthy, there is not even need of questioning why. Of course, God, as ultimate Authority and ultimate Lover, is the epitome of this, followed by my parents. By careful guidance, both have instilled in me basic norms, each carefully tied back to my good. Most of the things I do go back to this… and generally this is sufficient to keep me out of trouble.

But what happens those times that someone pulls out duty or force in a blatant sort of way… when I want to bring to bear what force I have to make them leave me alone… like when Dean Wilson spoke in chapel the other week?

There is only one thing that holds me back in such circumstances. The second type of love – mine for other people. I love Dean Wilson – and PHC – so I’ll conform for their sake. Most of all, I cannot experience the love of God and not love in return, so I obey the authority out of deference to Him.

What puzzles me is the fact that this form of motivation is often overlooked in the Christian community – or is simply turned into an aphorism. Why are most churches Kantian in their approach? It certainly is the quick and easy way. Then, why do so many people tolerate it? Any ideas?