Fable of the Bees
Does civilization need sin to function?
June, 2022
In the early 1700's, Bernard Mandeville wrote The Fable of the Bees, consisting of a poem entitled "The Grumbling Hive" and discussions of its meaning. In his tale, a prospering hive of bees complains about the deterioration of society. The bees imagine what would happen if people were universally honest and ethical. In the poem, this happens, but to disastrous effect. Bars go out of business since no one gets drunk. Tailors are unemployed since people are happy with worn, used clothes. Police and lawyers are unemployed since there is no crime or dissent. This leads to economic ruin. Many take Mandeville's reasoning to be that vice—greed, pride, etc.—are necessary for society to function well. The subtitle of his work, in fact, was "Private Vices, Public Benefits."
There's subtlety in Mandeville's writing beyond what many grasp. That includes many of his peers. His work produced a measure of controversy, but mostly long after it had been in print. In truth, Mandeville wasn't claiming that sin needed to be encouraged. Rather, he was pointing out that many people derive "public benefit" from "private vices." For example, bartenders, jailers, and so forth. For such people to condemn the very sins from which they profit reads like hypocrisy.
In Mandeville's poem—the original "The Grumbling Hive"—the hive is successful, but also corrupt. In that specific situation, the corruption led to the prosperity. This means his analogy begs the question: it assumes what it appears to prove. What's more important is to note the subtle distinction in Mandeville's point. He was not suggesting that society "needs to sin" to prosper. Rather, he was implying that prosperity requires a society which is "free to sin." His argument is not that sin must be committed to be successful; he's claiming success requires freedom that allows the possibility of wrongdoing.
Since Mandeville is somewhat begging the question, his analogy fails on a broad scale, in and of itself. So would any suggestion that crime and sin are needed for a culture to be functional. Many analogies fail when they only carry an idea far enough to make a preferred point, rather than extending the logic to it's complete end. This occurs when a person posits an idea, shows some of the results, but then abandons or drops the idea—or other conclusions—when it stops supporting the preferred conclusion.
In Mandeville's case, he speaks of judges, police, locksmiths, tailors, etc. going out of business, since nobody needs those services anymore. That makes sense of a society where no one exhibits greed, vanity, or dishonesty. Yet it fails to account for the loss of other vices, and the resulting gain in resources. In a totally "vice-less" society, people would also be cooperative, generous, and hardworking. They would give up laziness, selfishness, materialism, arrogance, cowardice, violence, and so forth. That's not a society where people starve and languish. It's one where all the culture's efforts become cooperative towards feeding, healing, and learning.
This relates to the so-called "Communist ideal:" a totally classless society, devoid of personal property or wealth inequity. The only way for that society to exist is in a situation like that depicted in The Grumbling Hive. All people—without exception—would need to be mutually cooperative and entirely selfless. There is no room for vices like greed and dishonesty, else the paradigm fails. Which, of course, is why heavy-handed Socialism-Communism systems fail everywhere they are implemented. They make assumptions about humanity which are simply untrue: the required inputs can never be provided, so the expected outputs can never be attained.
Conversely, if society was actually vice-less, the Communist culture would not only be possible, it would also be inevitable. If Mandeville's hive was really, truly, freed of "all" vice, it would become an even more powerful, efficient utopia. All energy once spent to counter vice would now be applied by perfectly virtuous citizens to higher and greater things. Policemen become carpenters, lawyers become doctors, tailors become scholars, soldiers become farmers, etc.
A common myth, related to concepts like Mandeville's Fable, is that a perfectly virtuous people would simply sit around, content, doing literally nothing, until they die. That's not what Scripture indicates (1 Thessalonians 4:1–11; James 4:17). Even if all people were moral, there would still be work to do. The Bible also indicates that vice is inevitable in this world; therefore, we must be realistic about it (Matthew 26:11; 1 Corinthians 5:9–11). That practical approach is why the Bible offered laws governing concepts such as divorce and slavery. God does not approve of those but knows they will happen, anyway, so they are mitigated by checks and balances.
Taken as far as some critics suggest, Mandeville's analogy relies on a caricature of virtue, not the Christian ideal. Keep in mind that Mandeville himself might well have agreed with everything said here. He was not overtly taking the "greed is good" attitude. Rather, he was pointing out that many who complain about immorality benefit from the consequences of those very vices. Likewise, those who rage when society tolerates immorality forget that societies are most successful when they allow broad freedom, which may mean choosing sin. Encouraging sin is vastly different from allowing the possibility of it happening.
Mandeville's core point was really that the freedoms enabling prosperity and success are the exact same ones which inevitably lead to expressions of vice. Flourishing societies recognize and accept this. In coarse terms, his point is the reason why Capitalism-in-practice has been wildly successful, and Communism-in-practice has always failed. The former sees the world as it is, and plans accordingly, the latter pretends people are something they are not, and has to "force" the issue. Likewise, a government which legislates out all possibility of ethical dissent also erases avenues for growth and success.
Biblically, this coordinates with the Christian idea that greed and rank materialism are harmful to both nations and individuals (1 Timothy 6:10). It also tracks with the thought that human beings, and their laws, are flawed and not the ultimate solution to problems (1 Samuel 8:4–18). The often-misused idea that love of money inspires many sins means just that: greed drives people to do things which ultimately lead to their own doom. In many cases, that includes spiritual death (Mark 10:17–23). It can mean a life wasted in pursuit of wealth that person never gets to enjoy (Luke 12:13–21). It also means failing to love and care for others the way God intended (Matthew 25:45).
This perspective allows believers to counter the claim that "greed is good." It debunks the notion that sin needs to be committed for an economy to be healthy. Vice and sin are never good, never helpful, and never positive. But they are also inevitable, in a fallen world. Given a choice, people will sin; given no choice, people will not prosper. We can plan accordingly, or pretend otherwise and suffer the consequences. Both sides—the reality of sin and its consequences it—are inseparable parts of the Christian worldview.
-- Editor
