Greater Good
An ambiguous collectivist crutch that consistently fails to deliver on the prosperous future it promises.
Vague banners of progress are meaningless rhetorical ploys designed to compel personal sacrifice in exchange for potential stability down the road. If and when these roads are paved, they will serve to consolidate wealth and power among those who already have plenty of both. The cost of the asphalt is always funded by ordinary citizens.
Statements claiming the pursuit of a ‘greater good’ serve three important functions. One, they serve as thinly-veiled threats to dissidents – if you oppose us, my followers will eliminate you on my behalf, because they believe that they are on the right side of history. Two, they instill a sense of moral superiority in the morally bankrupt – this is my opportunity to do the right thing, I will not let you take it away from me. Three, they duplicitously convey an incoherent message of unity while ironically generating division – we are all in this together, and you better not stand in our way!
Appeals to the greater good are consistently used by messianic despots to justify their amoral conduct. They will claim that they are merely behaving in a manner consistent with the laws of nature – I am no less moral than anyone else; anyone would do the same thing in my position, I am just the one who occupies the position. They do not view their contradictory journey or detours as they are, rather, they imagine them to be necessary and instrumental actions taken to align the world with their vision. They may even believe that realizing their dream is done for the collective, and the costs were necessary for the greater good.
Chasing the greater good has been known to turn even the most well-intentioned people into vile and immoral consequentialists. In the television series Blacklist, an exchange occurs between Raymond “Red” Reddington, the notorious Concierge of Crime, and Geoff “Ace” Perl, a billionaire philanthropist and conservationist, that showcases the journey, mindset and justifications made by those who claim to pursue the greater good.
In this episode, Red is attempting to track down the Mombasa Cartel, a ruthless and elusive organization responsible for the illegal poaching of endangered wildlife. Red and Geoff have known each other for years, and Red has invested millions in Geoff’s conservation efforts because they both value the environment. Red eventually discovers that Geoff runs the Mombasa Cartel, and they have the following discussion:
Red: [looking at an old picture] There you are – Sean Salter. You went by the name “Ace” back then. You left Animal Underground two years before the Sitka Seven killings and subsequent trials. Lucky, that. But, then, you’ve always had a talent for well-timed exits. Well, it seems, Ace, there’s still some freaks up there living in the woods, skinning people and dumping them in the Bay.
Geoff: Poachers, not people, responsible for the decimation of hundreds of wild and endangered species.
Red: Yes. Horrific. And if that was your endgame, I’d be writing you another sizable contribution to keep up the good work. But that isn’t the endgame, is it, Geoff? You see, before I got involved with your Foundation, I ran a comprehensive background check. All your business interests, corporations. Among them, a rather innocuous shell called “Wendigo, LLC.” Everything looked fine. Shame on me. Turns out Wendigo holds controlling stock in a small but lucrative concern called Emerson-Concorde Imports that you recently identified to a lovely young friend of mine as a front for the Mombasa Cartel.
Geoff: Why would I kill my own people?
Red: You’re a businessman. As long as you were killing off the competition, you took the opportunity to clear out deadwood in your own operation. The evidence of your guilt is convoluted but irrefutable. I simply cannot fathom the journey, the moral detours necessary to change a man who cherished all creatures great and small into one who profits from their slaughter.
Geoff: My motives have never been about profits. I have more money than I’ll ever need. And there’s been no journey, no detours. I’m the same guy I’ve always been – I’m a conservationist. And as you pointed out, I’m a businessman. I understand the law of supply and demand. As long as the market exists – and it will always exist – there will be people willing to meet the demand. It can’t be stopped. It can be controlled.
Red: A natural monopoly.
Geoff: Exactly. These cartels are completely out of control. But through a natural monopoly, the supply curve can be managed. The short-term demand can be met without threatening the long-term survival of the species.
Red: Geoff, that was breathtaking – an operatic perversion of righteous intent. But your strategy, no matter how noble the rhetoric, is betrayed and, inevitably, defined by your actions. This isn’t about conservation. It’s about consolidation. We are what we do, Ace.(1)
The interesting thing to notice here is that Red is a career criminal and murderer, yet he is the one who takes exception to Geoff’s goal of establishing a natural monopoly for illegal poaching, justified as desirable and necessary for the world. The Concierge of Crime has a stronger moral barometer than the billionaire philanthropist who has found ways to rationalize his own murder and poaching while believing himself virtuous.
This exchange highlights ten elements of messianic figures who pursue the greater good in their own right. Let’s examine them one at a time, so we can be clear on how to identify their deceitful grandiosity:
They always manage to escape accountability
“…you’ve always had a talent for well-timed exits.”
It should come as no surprise that once these dishonourable figures have adequately enriched themselves at our expense, they will quietly see their way out of the situation. This is especially common as scandals become more difficult to bury or conceal, and they will frequently find a scapegoat to take the fall for their misconduct.
They deflect attention and responsibility by demonizing another party
“Poachers, not people…”
By strategically redefining or recharacterizing others in a dehumanizing fashion, they believe they can distract you with a more imminent threat in lieu of investigating their conduct. This also provides them with relative cover – despite what you think about me, look at what those people are doing! They’re much worse than me!
They play dumb or side-step direct accusations by inferring you are being unreasonable
“Why would I kill my own people?”
Great question – why would someone kill their own people? Simple, because they are a narcissistic messianic psychopath who feels that the ends justify the means. They have a DARK TRIAD personality.
They generate layers of complexity to obfuscate our ability to form a complete picture
“The evidence of your guilt is convoluted but irrefutable.”
Commonly employed by organized crime, this is a strategy designed to make it nearly impossible to combine evidence in a clear enough manner to prosecute or prove anything beyond circumstantial. While the criminal and their offences are clear, a significant causal relationship cannot be established, as a result, they continue to offend.
They engage in regular indulgences as a justification for their grand narrative
“I simply cannot fathom the journey, the moral detours necessary to change a man who cherished all creatures great and small into one who profits from their slaughter.”
Whether they started with the knowledge that grandiose promises can never be fulfilled, or they learned it along the way, it is clear that the disconnect between idealistic rhetoric and reality is palpable. They will excuse their own sins as measured and acceptable in the face of what can be achieved in the long-term for the greater good.
They will deny that they are interested in money or power yet somehow obtain both in large quantities
“My motives have never been about profits.”
It is curious how megalomaniacs claim to be primarily focused on a universal and noble cause while they simultaneously become wealthier and more powerful than ever before. This must surely be a coincidence.
They will engage in sophistry – the use of fallacious arguments intending to deceive
“…there’s been no journey, no detours. I’m the same guy I’ve always been – I’m a conservationist.”
This is a bait and switch. While it could be argued that their message has remained consistent, the inferences have changed dramatically. When someone claims they are a conservationist, we assume that this does not imply killing animals and destroying the environment in order to protect it. The same fallacies are used when people claim that they need to destroy free speech in order to protect it, or that they need to jeopardize the health and safety of children in order to protect them.
They will insinuate that their conduct is natural, evident and expected, and that anyone would do the same in their position because it is straight-forward and simple
“I understand the law of supply and demand. As long as the market exists – and it will always exist – there will be people willing to meet the demand. It can’t be stopped. It can be controlled.”
By reducing the complexity of an issue to a single economic dynamic, every important human issue can be solved by claiming it’s just business. Human governance is not business, if and when such arguments are put forth, they are attempting to infer that if we seek to complicate it in any manner, then we are interfering with their moralistic grand narrative. We will be accused of causing harm to our fellow citizens for daring to ask a question or demand arguments and evidence that are commensurate with the significance of the issue.
They will insist that their vision is necessary for stability and flourishing, and that we need them to be in charge for the greater good
“These cartels are completely out of control. But through a natural monopoly, the supply curve can be managed. The short-term demand can be met without threatening the long-term survival of the species.”
Monopolies are always favoured by the monopolist. They believe that through them, we shall all be saved. They will show disdain for our failure to be convinced by their messianic and noble narrative. They are not doing what they want, they are doing what needs to be done; they just happen to be the one in charge.
Their actions betray their rhetoric, and they try to convince us that words speak louder than actions
“This isn’t about conservation. It’s about consolidation. We are what we do, Ace.”
If we look past their sophistry and deceptive language, it is clear that a conservationist does not knowingly destroy the environment. Words have meanings, and if we believe that a conservationist remains a conservationist despite their poaching and deforestation, then we deserve to governed by a messianic despot.
Pacifists do not kill, the compassionate do not hate, and the virtuous do not sin. Unifiers do not divide, the peaceful do not create conflict, and the modest do not believe themselves saviours. We are human at the end of the day, with all of our shortcomings and imperfections. How we describe ourselves and our intentions is irrelevant; we are what we do.
The greater good is only saliently achieved by working together to both liberate and improve our states of existence relative to our pasts. All ships can rise together, albeit rather slowly and progressively.
A political saviour claiming that they are the catalyst through which this is achieved is not to be trusted; they are duplicitous and dangerous.
(1) “The Mombasa Cartel (No. 114).” Blacklist, Bokenkamp, J. Knauf, D. (Writers), Shuman A. K. (Executive Story Editor), Platt, D. (Director), season 2, episode 6, NBC, 2014.
Posted: 24 Jan 2023
