An Economic Definition of Prosperity

Prosperity is rarely a concept that is collectively agreed upon. More specifically, prosperity is continuously redefined from one generation to the next. For instance: while a family without a refrigerator today in America might be thought of as fairly non-prosperous, not a single household had a refrigerator or other efficient food preserver three generations ago. One’s evaluation of personal prosperity might be based on his position relative to his peers. An individual who has sufficient food, water, and shelter in a developing nation might view himself as prosperous if he sees several of his peers struggling with starvation. Because values are subjective, personal prosperity will be subjective to some degree. A common element in every man’s definition of prosperity, however, is satisfaction of physiological needs. One who is prosperous will be required to allocate little of their time to finding ways to satisfy physiological needs and can refocus attention to pleasure achieved non-physiologically. A man who is spending less time looking for food and water is a man spending more time looking for a mate, working toward social advancement, etc. So, to say that society A is more prosperous than society B, society A must have human necessities satisfied to a greater degree than society B. Members in Society B will be forced to spend more time finding ways of satisfying basic needs and less time satisfying human needs beyond the physiological level. 

Homo Sapiens v. Other Species: Is there a Fundamental Difference?

          Homo sapiens are thought of as a unique species on earth. Several of the fundamental aspects are very similar for humans and other species, such as the ability to have behavior conditioned and several behavior motivating factors. In other areas, however, humans are unique to other species.

Conditioning

            Another behavior aspect that humans and animals have in common is the ability to be easily conditioned. As demonstrated by psychologist Ivan Pavlov and his dogs, animals can be classically conditioned to various stimuli. This is very similar to the way that humans, after being burned by hot shower water, can be classically conditioned to quickly maneuver away from shower needles after a nearby toilet is flushed. Operant conditioning, or making a certain behavior more or less probable using punishment or reinforcement, has been observed for both humans and animals. An individual who teaches a new trick to their dog by reinforcing the desired behavior with treats is engaging in operant conditioning. Similarly, the 4^th grade teacher who gives out gold stars to students who score A’s is using operant conditioning to raise student grades.

Hierarchy of Needs

Human behavior and that of other animals are similar in many ways.  Psychologist Abraham Maslow attempted to describe animal and human behavior in a paper entitled, A Theory of Human Motvation. Maslow describes how in both humans and animals, certain needs and drives have precedence over others, depending on recently they have been satisfied as well as importance to well being. His ordering of the needs in terms of relative precedence is now called Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Of the drives and needs described by Maslow, physiological drives precede all others. Both humans and animals experience what is called homeostasis, where physiological drives such as air, food, or water provoke behavior that will satisfy the need, thus temporarily allowing the individual to focus its attention elsewhere. Until the physiological drive is reduced, however, it will preoccupy the individual. If there is prolonged deprivation, the individual will experience pain. This serves as evidence that physiological drives can be an exclusive behavior organizer for both humans and animals.  One distinction worth noting, however, is that delayed gratification plays an important role in influencing human behavior. Because of this, humans are able to escape pure physiological behavior domination to achieve more socially oriented goals – something animals do not generally engage in.

Following physiological drives in Maslow’s hierarchy is safety needs. Just like physiological drives, safety needs can be an exclusive behavior organizer for humans and animals.  While this can be easily observed watching certain animal behavior, safety need-reducing behavior by humans is less commonly observed in society. Cases where this concept is illustrated include emergency situations, individuals with neurosis (excessive and irrational anxiety), and in infants (observed when an infant starts crying due to a perceived threat). For both humans and animals, an absence of safety-need fulfillment is felt as fear. An important factor, exclusively for humans in this case, is the role of culture. Because premature human deaths are seen as sub-optimal for society, human culture aims to collectively reduce societal safety needs. The impact of such is an enormous reduction of the possibility that safety needs are left unsatisfied.  Some even argue that this desire to reduce societal safety needs is the driving force behind such fields as science, philosophy, and religion that aim to increase prosperity.

            Once physiological and safety needs have been fulfilled, one’s attention may be refocused to the next highest need in the hierarchy – love and belongingness needs. For both humans and animals, negative emotions are generally experienced during isolation. John Burkitt this calls a “reaction to potential social contact.” He goes on to say that tigers have been observed playing in neutral territorial zones and engaging in other activities that suggest social stimulation. Just as humans do in the absence of friends, love, or children, isolated tigers display apparent grief symptoms, such as loss of appetite.

            After love and belongingness needs in the hierarchy is esteem needs. Some might argue that humans and not animals exclusively experience esteem needs. Burkitt argues that esteem needs, though less obvious, may be observed in tiger behavior. He says that degree of influence in one’s environment is a direct indicator of one’s esteem, since tigers self-sort according to dominant/submissive relationships. They then respond to challenges according to confidence level. For both humans and animals, fulfillment of esteem needs results in feelings of self-worth and confidence and failure to meet these needs results in discouragement or in some cases neurosis.

            Even deeper in the hierarchy lies the need for self-actualization, or reaching one’s full potential. Even though there may be a few exceptions and exclusive factors, the first four needs described by Maslow are experienced by humans and animals. This drive, on the other hand, is one exclusively experienced by humans. Assuming that more urgent drives have been satisfied, an individual will develop a need to be all that he can be. In A Theory of Human Motivation, Maslow describes this concept with the following phrase, “What a man can be, he must be,”(Maslow 383).

            In conclusion, whether humans are fundamentally different from other species is dependent on which fundamental aspect being examined. Those aspects most important to survival of a species, such as physiological drives and safety needs are generally more similar between humans and animals. The aspects more relevant to cognition and other unique human capabilities, such as the need for self-actualization, generally have a larger distinction between humans and other species. 

Free Markets: Creation or Destruction of Virtues?

          The impact of the free market on human virtues is a concept that is widely disputed. Many have argued that the free market effectively destroys morals. A few characteristics of the market economy, however, inevitably generate virtues among its participants.

          Many would argue that consumer satisfaction is (in general) high in the free market relative to a command system. One key difference between the market and command economic systems is the process of deciding what will be produced. In a command system, government makes the decision and bases it on their evaluation of optimal resource distribution. A market economy, on the other hand, has its resources allocated according to consumer demand – since firms respond with production in the pursuit of profit. Consumers get higher utility, or satisfaction, from consuming products that they want most. It is not uncommon for a command system’s government to allocate resources in such a way that inadequately satisfies consumers’ desires.  In a market economy, goods are produced according to desirability, at least partially eliminating the problem of inefficient resource allocation. With increased consumer satisfaction, some increased (at least temporary) happiness is a likely result. One psychology theory, called the feel-good do-good phenomenon, might help explain more virtuous behavior in the marketplace. Psychologist David Myers describes this theory by saying, “a mood-boosting experience (finding money, succeeding on a challenging task, recalling a happy event) has made people more likely to give money, pick up someone’s dropped papers, volunteer time, and do other good deeds. Psychologists call it the feel-good, do-good phenomenon,” (Myers, 479).  In other words, small pleasures from consumer satisfaction and mutually beneficial free market transactions could very well promote virtuous behavior in the marketplace.

          Free market incentives are another characteristic that may indirectly serve as a virtue creator. A bad reputation can easily result in enough lost business for a firm to shut down.  Many firms, especially in smaller communities, depend on repeat customers. Together, these factors incentivize quality products and service. One could even argue that free market incentives result in a cycle of operant conditioning that leads to growth of marketplace virtues. Assuming a producer depends on repeat customers to some degree, it is likely he will attempt to satisfy his customers in hopes they will return. Consumers who initially buy the product seek satisfaction in terms of quality and service. If the producer’s attempt was successful and the customer is happy, the consumer’s visit to the store was positively reinforced – increasing his likelihood of returning. Likewise, if the consumer returns, then the producer’s extra effort was positively reinforced – increasing the likelihood of further virtuous behavior by the producer.