What is love? The ancient Greeks had several words to describe “love.” There was eros (romantic or sexual love), agape (selfless love), and ludus (playful love). However, there is a very good and straightforward definition of love: the feeling that your well-being depends on the well-being of another person. Think about this definition, and you’ll realize that, indeed, it is an accurate description of love. When we read the Gospel, we often don’t fully grasp what Jesus Christ meant when he spoke of loving one’s neighbor. Elton John even suggested that Jesus was gay. We tend to think that Jesus Christ was literally calling us to love everyone around us—just as we love, say, our children or parents. This seems absurd. Of course, it is absurd. For us, the love that Christ spoke of appears to be some kind of abstraction. But it didn’t seem absurd at the beginning of the era. It was a very new statement, truly revolutionary. We fail to see the serious meaning in this call (even very devout people don’t seem to love everyone around them) simply because we already live with it. We live in a society where the norm, the expected behavior of those around us, is that people understand their dependence on others, in line with that straightforward definition of love. And it is precisely because of the promotion of this kind of love that our society is even possible. To illustrate this, consider a simple example: traffic rules.
Why do you think people don’t run red lights (well, aside from moral degenerates)? Simply because they understand that if everyone were to run red lights, it would ultimately be worse for them. They realize that by running a red light, they are making things worse for others, and therefore for themselves as well (the sense of their well-being being tied to the well-being of those around them).
One might think that obeying traffic rules is something forced. Drivers and pedestrians comply with the laws out of fear of fines. It could also be assumed that people are simply afraid for their own safety and care only about themselves. But try to roll back a few hundred years. We wouldn’t be able to explain the essence of traffic rules to a serf. He wouldn’t understand why people should voluntarily stop at a red light and would suspect that there would always be idiots who would run red lights and cause accidents. He might imagine barriers with guards at every intersection, funded by the drivers themselves in the form of tolls. But he could never have imagined that the overwhelming majority of people, without any coercion, without the threat of being immediately punished, stop at a red traffic light and patiently wait for it to change.
Why do most people not break the law, cough into their fists, avoid slurping, only relieve themselves in designated areas, use trash bins, clean up after their picnics in the woods, build tall chimneys, and so on? It’s all due to the same sense of love that became the norm of morality and should be “carved in stone” (c) from childhood. There are very few people in society who can think for themselves and recognize their personal interest in serving the public good. This is more complex than simply “don’t steal” or “don’t kill.” It’s more complicated now.
Two thousand years ago, it was completely unimaginable; and “do not steal” was as much a “higher mathematics” of morality as “love your neighbor” is today. This “do not steal” was drilled into people’s heads rather than explained why stealing is wrong. A criminal code cannot cover all possible forms of theft. Let’s not be deceitful by calling “primitive accumulation of capital” honest business just because there isn’t a law against it or because you haven’t been caught. Nowadays, it is still worth instilling love in people’s minds.
From a philosophical standpoint, every religion has its flaws, but if we look at it this way, its critically important function, which has shaped our society and significantly advanced European civilization, is morality. This morality has allowed us to save a great deal of resources and to use what we have more efficiently. It emphasizes that the interests of society are more important than personal ones, simply because you personally receive back everything you give to society. We don’t defecate in the streets. We respect traffic laws, we have financial institutions based solely on trust, from paper money to pension systems, and we are willing to obey our superiors, unlike Roman slaves, not because they wield a whip, but because it is socially beneficial, and so on.
______________________
- Of course, a person is willing to give up some of their rights and freedoms in exchange for obvious or rationalized benefits. If a person is not willing to make such a sacrifice, it simply means that the benefits are not clear or not rationalized (as described below). Being part of a culture partly involves being aware of the existing or presumed benefits. A medieval peasant lacks this awareness. At the same time, it is important to understand that people tend to rationalize when an “obvious benefit” appears out of nowhere, serving merely as a justification for the sacrifice. In other words, when a person sacrifices something for society in hopes of some presumed benefit, they will explain to themselves the value of that sacrifice. Thus, the very act of sacrifice will carry an element of satisfaction. This kind of explanation or self-rationalization is essentially… mechanism for ensuring happiness A person doesn’t want to appear foolish or deceived to themselves, and therefore they will find justifications for being a victim.We don’t love those who have done something good for us. We love those to whom we have done something good ourselves. And the more good we do for them, the more we want to do. This is a psychological law.“In the context of ‘polishing’ the self-rationalization of the victim, a cognitive distortion is presented, described as…” sticking effect “, when the total sacrifice in the context of deferred bonuses is “valued” in the mind of the donor more than the benefits of refraining from further sacrifices. For example, a typical tool that keeps a person in a work collective can be… a delay in salary payments. A person understands that if they quit, they will not receive what they are owed. At the same time, they continue to work for free, despite being deceived. More on the formation of the connection between a person and society.” Text for translation: here. Текст для перевода: ..
- One might think that laws are being violated less and less simply because the standard of living is rising, and there is no need to break the law for survival. However, even the poorest community does not suffer from pathological mutual crime among its members. A community, as a formation that guarantees a certain level of collective security, would simply disintegrate if stealing or killing were considered normal. It is noteworthy that even criminal societies do not encourage theft among their own.
- We tend to take such behavior for granted, but it is primarily an achievement of culture rather than just adherence to sanitary norms. For example, in India, it is still not considered shameful to relieve oneself in public or in front of others.
- We see trash in the forest left by a small minority of visitors—less than 5%. But that’s enough for us to notice the forest looking dirty. This simply indicates that the idea of considering the interests of others has not yet fully taken root in our consciousness.
- The text for translation: ↑. Of course, chimneys are primarily needed to ensure proper draft. However, the chimney is always built higher than the roof level in the area, and industrial chimneys of power plants and factories are constructed in such a way that the smoke disperses into the atmosphere before it can reach people’s lungs.
- At the same time, religion often does not emphasize the need to put in effort for others. The Old Testament, for example, frames its commandments as a “ticket to heaven,” promising personal benefits in exchange for socially encouraged behavior. This approach is simpler and more understandable for most people. Why do religions promote socially beneficial behavior? Perhaps it is because we are unable to observe religions that do not do so. Societies that lacked taboos against extreme opportunism (such as killing, stealing, etc.) simply could not compete with more mobilized societies that had a developed system of trust and expectations for the behavior of their members, based on the relevant culture.
- The realization of the functions of paper currency (as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, and a store of value) as a means of payment is only possible under certain conditions, namely: a) universal acceptance and b) their legality as a means of payment.…however, it is important not to overestimate the capabilities of the state. The fact that paper money is widely accepted is much more significant for giving these pieces of paper the functions of money than a government decree recognizing them as legal tender.(K.R. McConnell, S.L. Brue, “Economics,” 13th edition)
- When considering the reasons for an employee’s submission to a boss, one should immediately set aside the notion that the worker is simply getting paid to obey. There exists a balanced labor market where workers are offered similar pay by several potential employers. If the desire to earn money drives a person towards the idea of hired labor, it does not necessarily lead them to work for a specific boss in a particular company. At this point, other, non-monetary factors come into play. This is referred to as motivation, which fundamentally lies in the mutual understanding of shared goals between the boss and the employees.
- The view of society as a collection of individuals, each pursuing their own self-interested goals, is only accurate at first glance. Society is an entity that exists… practically independently from a specific individual within it. This is especially characteristic of large (latent) groups and, paradoxically, because each member of the group, acting rationally, is not inclined to exert effort towards achieving public goals. Yes, there is an idealized concept of a “social contract.” Yes, each member of society joins the society and contributes something to it only because they believe or actually perceive that society offers something in return. At the same time, the very reason and language through which we articulate our thoughts are social achievements, and it turns out that we are, in one way or another, thinking not our own thoughts, but the thoughts of the society we are part of. Moreover, totalitarian structures and any political and governmental systems are described in a way that is somewhat more complex than just referencing the “social contract.”