# Essay 1: The Roots of Honor

# Chapter summary

> The science of political economy is a delusion because it ignores “social affection,” the ability of human beings to care about one another. For example, it offers no guidance regarding labor unrest. We can easily see that families function on the basis of human affection not self-interest. Similarly, justice and social affection are required for truly good relations between a master and his servants and a military officer and his soldiers. In the national econonomy, the solution is to fix wages rather than letting them fluctuate with economic conditions and to keep workers employed even when business is slack. The duty of merchants is to provide for their nation, and they must give up selfish calculations. They must learn to care for their employees like parents care for their children and, when necessary, to make economic sacrifices for their workers.

# Summaries of each section:

▲

# «“Political economy” is a delusion (Sec 1)

The science of political economy is a delusion because it is based on the idea that social action does not need to consider “social affection,” the ability of human beings to care about one another. Like other delusions, the root idea is plausible: Social affection, says the economist, is unpredictable, while greed is a constant. Therefore, it’s best for economists to consider the human being as a “covetous machine.” Each individual can then think what they like about social affection. This idea fails, however, because social affections can’t just be added into our calculations about economic science. Rather the social affections totally disrupt political economy. Political economy, then, is simply irrelevant to real life, like a science of gymnastics that assumed that people had no skeletons.

# «Political economy doesn’t address fundamental human motivations (Sec 2)

As evidence of its irrelevance, consider that political economy can offer no help regarding the current crisis of labor unrest. Economists vainly try to determine whether or not the masters and the workers have conflicting interests. But conflicting interests don’t have to result in any antagonism: When a family has just a scrap of bread to eat, the mother may willingly do without food for the sake of her children—even though she has conflicting interests. On the larger scale, it’s never really clear what actions benefit the masters or laborers. With starvation wages, the master loses productivity. If workers get excessive wages, jobs may disappear. Instead of looking at who benefits from particular actions, we really need to think about justice—which is based largely on social affection. We can all understand what is just, and just behavior benefits us all.

# «The example of servants and the master of the household (Sec 3)

The master who works his servants as hard as he possibly can and pays as little as he can get away with—that’s the economist’s idea of the most productive relationship. This passes as “justice.” This model would work if the servant were some kind of machine, but the servant’s Soul really determines how much gets done, and this totally disrupts the economist’s calculations. A master who is both competent and benevolent will—through mutual affection, not antagonism—get the most and best work from his servants. Moreover, if a cynical master treats the servant kindly only to gain practical benefits, there will be no practical benefits.

# «The example of soldiers and their officers (Sec 4)

The officer who relies only on discipline will be less effective than the officer who truly cares about his men and builds their affection and trust.

# «We need to fix wages so they don’t fluctuate with economic conditions (Sec 5)

The relationship between a manufacturer and his workmen is more complex. Salaries are governed by the prevailing rate, and so loyalty and affection are eliminated. But let’s consider the possibility of (1) an established rate of pay for each category of work and (2) employers building loyalty by keeping workers on the job even when business is slack. Regarding (1): Consider that a prime minister, a bishop, a general, and a physician all work for an established rate of pay. Why not the same for workers? Furthermore, no worker should undercut another worker by asking for less. The reward for quality work is knowing you’ll be hired. Regarding (2), a more complex situation: If workers know their jobs are secure, they will willingly work for less and will live more orderly lives. Employers, therefore, should respect this and not optimize for themselves with constant layoffs.

# «Merchants must become unselflish and willingly sacrifice for their workers (Sec 6)

Soldiers are respected because we know they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Lawyers, physicians, and clergyman are respected because self-sacrifice is inherent to their professions. Merchants, despite their undeniable abilities and the importance of commerce, are not honored because they are presumed to always act selfishly. But true commerce, as society will need to learn, is not exclusively selfish, and the true merchant is willing to accept losses out of a sense of duty. And this duty is to provide for his nation and for those he employs. The true merchant or manufacturer has a parental responsibility and should treat his employees as his children and should be willing to sacrifice for them as a parent would. Yes, this doctrine sounds strange but it should not. All other political thinking is false and will lead to national destruction.