“My hypothesis is that we have two contradictory ways of getting a living; therefore we have two contradictory moral syndromes, one to suit each way and its derivatives.” We can take or we can trade. Over the last several thousands of years we have developed norms of acceptable taking and trading that have allowed some practices to withstand the test of time. Last time we looked at the commercial moral syndrome; today we look at the guardian moral syndrome.
The Guardian Moral Syndrome
Unlike the commercial moral syndrome which is based on trade and the bourgeois virtues the guardian moral syndrome originates in taking; that is, it is based on hunting and military virtues.
Shunning trading seems to have been a major component of guardian work (until recently) in the Americas, Europe, China, India, Japan and many other civilizations. Trading has traditionally been more than shunned. It was morally despised as “shameful, base, and contaminating.” But how bad could trade be compared to war? The author asks why shun trading and comes up with 3 main suppositions: 1) “security against sieges” meaning that one would not want anyone to be tempted to sell state secrets; 2) economic self-sufficiency which has always been (until recently) at least a dream if not a policy of leaders; and 3) defense against treachery as in the notion of selling out, for example selling guardian services. In and of themselves these would seem to be rare but the author asks us to consider if they were not: in the usual course of events all guardian work either creates or increases injustice when done for profit. A building inspector, a police officer, or a politician on the take is the usual course of events that needs to have the shun trading precept firmly entrenched. Meaning that trade should be shunned from an early age and nipped in the bud. “Ferreting out and disgracing or jailing malefactors helps keep guardian sellouts in hand….The bastion that really counts, and so is indispensable, is respect for the precept, respect strong enough to overcome temptation. When that is missing within any guardian institution taken as a whole, no legalistic approach can adequately substitute.”
Exert prowess means having and using power effectively. Originally it probably meant physical power; now, in addition, it is all the notions that Machiavelli wrote about. Government, in order to exert prowess must have obedience and discipline from its workers and agents (with some qualifications: genuinely guardian work). Adhering to tradition “helps serve as a substitute for conscience in guardian work. That may be tradition’s most important moral meaning. Normally, it sets limits to what’s done….When guardian commands do flout tradition, they’re at least apt to receive more than ordinary scrutiny and require more than ordinary justification.” This is the function of jurisprudence too: to set future expectations and avoid the vagaries of different individual judges or government agents. Notice how it is the exact opposite of the commercial syndrome that cherishes descent for the task. The two moral syndromes are opposite and needed: one conducive to innovation the other to stability. Respect hierarchy follows up on these guardian precepts but is of a higher rank in that when the two systems conflict guardian force settles matters just as hierarchical law ranks higher than contractual law. For example, martial law, eminent domain, and tax law all beat out contractual law.
Loyalty is an interesting ideal for guardians. It is valued very highly. Disloyalty is among the highest crimes (treason) to a group with some of the most extreme punishments; but and loyalty’s protection is much valued buy the group “…many stupidities and mistakes have been forgiven guardians whose loyalty is unimpeachable.” Like Honesty in the commercial syndrome, loyalty in the guardian syndrome “…does not seem to come naturally to us….neither can be depended upon without constant inculcation and watchfulness.” The author gives several examples of homicide rates in primitive “peaceful” tribes and suggests that loyalty is not a trait of hunter gatherers in down time. Loyalty came from the need to suppress personal vengeance or rebellion over the long term in both moments of crisis and the long interludes between. Loyalty is entirely a military creation. And, like honesty, it is easily corrupted. “If other guardian precepts in the syndrome break down, then loyalty converts from virtue to vice….when a police force goes corrupt, takes bribes, or when a guardian cabal is bent on subverting a constitution, the ranks close against outsiders, loyally protecting wrongdoers and stonewalling honest men. Without the direction from the rest of the syndrome, loyalty corrupts. It is a two-edged sword.”
Taking vengeance is the heart of the state. It demands a monopoly on the use of force. It demands that all others give up their right to vengeance and let the state distribute it as justice. At every level it is the state that has both the authority and the power. Other guardian groups more or less share in this power with the state in their respected domains at the pleasure of the state.
Deceiving for the sake of the task comes from hunting where all hunters try to deceive their prey. “The principles of virtuous guardian deception are these,…It must not be aimed at other members of the organization. That is disloyalty….It must be for the sake of carrying out a guardian task….if those two conditions are met, guardian deception is esteemed.” Another precept that comes from the hunting lifestyle is to make rich use of leisure. Hunting is sporadic based often on need and there is plenty of modern evidence that hunter gather societies have a lot of leisure time. So the prevalence of sports and arts are a result of guardian virtues. This is in opposition to “the sour doctrine that idleness is a playground for the devil [which] belongs to the commercial syndrome with its esteem for industriousness.” The author makes mention of “This cult of the amateur, this suspicion of the professional athlete who sells his skill, [and which] has only very recently broken down.” The author also points out that the sporadic hunting/work balanced with rich use of leisure has a human survival benefit: indiscriminate and continual killing ruins the habitat; factory killing like in death camps; stockpiling of WMD are Jacobs first mention of monstrous moral hybrids where commercial industriousness, thrift, and efficiency are used by guardians for unjust guardian ends.
“Virtuous guardian ostentation isn’t self-indulgent, like ostentation on the part of individual consumers or rich commercial companies….Ostentation at its most naked, as in military shows, parades prowess and is calculated to evoke awe, fear, or reassurance. But in most guises, guardian ostentation is somewhat subtler. It expresses pride, tradition, continuity, stability.” By dispensing largesse, the author says, “Largesse is the guardian form of investment: specifically, investment in power, influence, and control.” When you hear in some countries of large state banks that have unperforming loans that need to be “restructured,” what is really happening is a commercial cast of mind is criticizing largesse as if it were a commercial loan. “[P]ojects we call pork barrels are largesse in commercial masquerade.” To be exclusive, guardians create distinguishing symbols, rituals, and credentials unlike a commercial cast of mind that should sell to anyone with the money. Fortitude is heroic and dealing with problems stoically is how guardians should deal with the public. Be fatalistic comes from high risk pursuits such as the life of a soldier but it is useful for the sake of continuity of task. Lastly treasuring honour cultivates the respect of an office and the authority that goes with it.