"A Thief is Never Rational"

Guido Reni (1575 – 1642)
Archangel Michael Defeating Satan
1635
Oil on canvas
Dimensions: 293 x 202 cm
Private Collection

I recently posted an article from the Orthosphere, The Metastasy of Wickedness, by Kristor in its entirety and without my commentary.

A poster named Bedarz Iliaci makes some important points about Kristor's thesis. Below is some of their interaction:

Bedarz Iliaci:

Kristor,

BI: I am surprised to find you spouting such modern sentiments.

K: So long as society is so ordered as to promote or encourage or reward vice, there will be vice.

BI: NO. There was sin even in Eden.

K: And indeed, they are not altogether useless, or they would never have succeeded at what they do.

BI: A thief has no social goodness altogether, even though he promotes lock-making industry.

K: The control of vice and the promotion of virtue therefore depends, not on the elimination of the vicious – who are, after all, only responding rationally (if amorally) to the vicious environment in which they find themselves, and who if eliminated will be replaced – but of the weakness and perversity of the system itself.

BI: Isn’t this what Progressives say?. The individuals are good but the system is bad and must be reformed. The the usage of the word “rationally” jars – you are using it in the sense of economists – a purely instrumental thing. A thief is never rational.

Kristor:

Bedarz, you aren’t making sense here.

BI: There was sin even in Eden.

K: That there was sin even in a pure society does not mean that there is no sin in a perverted society. Indeed, that there can be sin even in Eden makes sin in a perverted society seem all the more likely. You make my argument.

BI: A thief has no social goodness.

K: Really? None? He is no good at all to anyone? What about Jean Valjean?

BI: A thief is never rational.

K: Really? The thieves are all wandering about gibbering and drooling like maniacs, with their flies open and their shoes on backwards? How on earth, then, do they ever get it together to steal anything?

That a thing is deformed does not mean it is altogether evil. The zero of goodness is the zero of being. Even Satan retains the glory, power and intelligence of a seraph.

As to whether I am saying something the Progressives say: no. The progressives say that what we do is not our responsibility at all, and that we are wholly the products of our environments. I am saying that while we are certainly influenced by our environments, we are responsible for what we do. Only thus could any of our acts be characterized as either good or evil.

Bedarz Iliaci:

A thief has no social goodness.

Means that as a thief, a man has no goodness. That is, the essence of stealing is bad for the City. Surely, you would not disagree. Thus, the vices, even greed are not conducive to the good of the City even though they may lead to material growth, but inevitably the social bonds are weakened. And thus contra 18C economists private vices do not make for public good.

A thief is never rational.

Simply, it is not rational to steal. You have modern instrumental view of rationality. I take the view that being rational implies having correct premises.

Your point may be recast as - Man is largely formed by his City. We see the acts but God sees the heart.

[My notes: Yes, exactly right. It is like liberalism, which appears to be doing us good, but the system inherently leads to destruction, even if some of its manifestations (early on) appear to do us some good.]

Kristor:

I think I see what you are getting at. The thievery of a man is bad, even though the man himself, qua man rather than qua thief, may not be all bad. Likewise, the thievery of a man, being inherently irrational, vitiates his rationality, even though he might be quite rational in many other respects. Agreed.

Thus, the vices, even greed are not conducive to the good of the City even though they may lead to material growth, but inevitably the social bonds are weakened.

Yes. This was a prominent secondary theme of the post. You are saying the same thing I did.

I searched for the image that the Orthosphere blog has put up as its masthead. The painter is Guido Reni, from 17th century Italy and the painting, Archangel Michael Defeating Satan. This is an apt figurehead for the blog, although we have not yet defeated Satan.

I also found the painting below by Guido Reni of a young David. We can see the character and the strength of David who went on to defeat Goliath.


Guido Reni (1575 – 1642)
David
Oil on canvas
1620
65 x 50 cm
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria
[source: Wikipaintings]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------