The Pious and the Hypocrite

I’ve been mulling a topic for a week or two now and today on the radio I heard an interesting perspective.  Dennis Prager set up this juxtaposition, which I’ll expand a bit for my purposes

Man #1 is pious.  He is kind to those he meets, helps his neighbors and cares for his family.  He gives regularly to charitable organizations and attends church religiously (sorry).  He’s a hard worker at his middle class job – conscientious even without supervision and has unmatched integrity and sincerity.

Man #2 is… well, not.  He claims to hold mainstream moral values but his lifestyle (outside his once a week church visit) proves otherwise.  He’s on his third wife (obviously needing to move churches each time to avoid the poor opinions of others) and that relationship isn’t going well either.  He’s a Wall Street type and outside of flings with his secretary, his only passion is money; making it, hoarding it and spending it.  He is 100% dedicated to his own image as far as it concerns others believing that he has it all together and has the world at his finger tips.  Greed – followed closely by the desire for power – is the driving force that animates his efforts and he will tell anyone anything to achieve those ends.

Now, I don’t think it would be considered judgmental to label Man #1 as more worthy of respect for his personal life and perceived ethos.  But, which of these – determined on the basis of results – would be considered more beneficial to society?  That’s not quite so easy.

What if the story was expanded to show that Man #1 took that piousness to the extreme and become a suicide bomber?  Does his personal integrity and dedication trump what he’s done?  I assume that’s a question that doesn’t require an answer.

And Man #2.  What if his intense desire to turn a profit, pad his pockets and increase his status leads to thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of families being financially viable into the future?  His singleminded selfishness has the effect of paying for the college tuition of children and grandchildren across the nation.  It means that a aging couple will be able to afford to stay in the house they’ve owned for 30 years after retirement.  It means that middle-class families (well below the personal financial level of our second man) can count on continuing their modest lifestyle into the future.  It gives a respectable return on investment to the pension funds of teachers, laborers, engineers and truckers.

I guess I’m trying to make 2 points, which are somewhat related.

1. If corporate execs, bankers, traders and fund managers are obeying the law and doing their jobs (ie. providing jobs, money and financial returns to people in virtually all levels of society) then why are their motives important?  They have a task before them to take someone’s money and use it to make more money and they generally achieve this.  Strictly judging by their societal benefit, they are productive.

2.  This is why our system is the best ever conceived.  It pragmatically takes into account (unlike socialism) how humans *actually* behave and uses that to provide money to the people who have the ideas – with the help of their hard-working fellow man – to turn some money into more money to everyone’s benefit.

I know this is a bit heady for a lazy Tuesday afternoon but do any of you have an opinion on this?