Good for me, but not for you?
Reading the comments on this article, the thing that must surely strike one as amazing: the readiness with which the words "greed" or "profit" are demonized, and, on the other hand, with which words like "non-profit" or "selfless" are elevated. It is as though an action characterized by being "not-for-profit" is inherently more coloured with moral dignity than one which reveals pecuniary motives. No doubt, this is in part due to movements calling for "corporate responsibility", mistaken religious doctrine and the like. Yet surely this is a fallacy, and I intend to show in precisely what terms it is so. I want, here, to avoid any moral argumentation whatsoever. My analysis will be purely in the realm of "is", and will avoid any moral connotations whatsoever.
When one acts, it is a matter of apodicticity that they do so in order to substitute their current state of affairs for a better one, or perhaps even to prevent a worse one from materializing. That is to say, they act in their self-interest. At the most basic level, when one's expectations are realized, they will profit, as the benefits their action yields will exceed the costs involved. Here, already, at the most fundamental level of human agency we have the category of profit (or, in the case one fails to reach their goals, loss.) This has implications that are of no small significance. When the social worker gives up her free time to aid the needy, she does so because she feels that aiding them is a noble goal. It satisfies her, psychically, to see the poor being helped. She profits psychically. Man cannot survive on charity alone though, so we must go further than this. In order to acquire his most basic needs, man must engage in the division of labour and exchange goods. When he values the goods of another more than those he currently holds, and this other individual values his goods more than he values his own, trade will instantiate. Both will profit to the extent that the exchange yields benefits exceeding the costs they incurred. Again, we see the phenomenon of profit. Man's ends being virtually limitless, he will seek ever more means to help attain his goals. He is by his nature an acquisitive being. All that changes when money enters into the picture is that exchange is indirect, and measurable in terms of the monetary unit. So there we have it - at the most fundamental level of human action, we encounter profit and acquisitiveness as natural phenomena.
Be not fooled - the sanctimonious preacher, the moralizing politician, the devout humanist, these individuals all act to realize a profit, and gain ever more of it, their rantings to the contrary notwithstanding. The cognitive dissonance with which people analyze exchanges involving purely psychic profit and barter on the one hand and indirect exchange on the other must be purged from the intellectual realm.
-Jon