Diary: The Individual in Social Sciences

Cloudy
·
July 2, 2025
·

Curled up in my A City apartment, I’ve been wrestling with The French High School Philosophy Reader, diving into the question: What is the role of the individual in social sciences? The text pulls from Adam Smith, debates on surrogacy, and the ethics of interest lending, sparking reflections on my life here—where individual choices clash with collective norms in this bustling, politically charged city.

Adam Smith: Self-Interest as the Engine of Exchange

In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith argues that self-interest drives exchange, not charity. Unlike dogs, who never barter bones, humans trade by appealing to others’ self-interest: “Give me what I need, and you’ll get what you want.” It’s not the butcher’s kindness that puts dinner on my table—it’s their pursuit of profit.

This hits home in A City. At the campus café, I don’t expect free coffee; I pay, and the barista earns. Yet, Smith notes that humans, unlike solitary animals, rely on cooperation. In A City, I see this in my roommates’ chore system—each of us contributes for mutual benefit, not out of pure goodwill. But I wonder: is this self-interest inherently selfish, or just practical?

The text contrasts holism (society shapes individuals) with individualism (individuals shape society). In A City, I feel both. My choices—studying late, grading papers—are individual, but they’re molded by the academic culture around me. Which comes first: the individual or the collective?

Key Question: Are humans naturally selfish, or does private property make us so?
This is a tough one. If selfishness is innate, we’d prioritize ourselves even without possessions. But how do you test “having nothing”? Smith says humans always need others, so “nothing” might include relationships, not just objects. Property, though, seems to amplify self-interest—owning my old kettle makes me protective, not generous. Yet, before property, were we selfless? I doubt it. In A City’s competitive academic world, I see students hustle for grades, not out of malice but survival. Maybe selfishness isn’t about property but context.

Surrogacy: Freedom vs. Exploitation

The chapter dives into a 2009 French debate on surrogacy, pitting two philosophers against each other. Sylviane Agacinski argues that legalizing surrogacy risks exploiting vulnerable women, turning their bodies into tools for profit-driven clinics. Hugues Ogien counters that banning it infringes on personal freedom, insisting individuals should make their own choices as long as no one is harmed—a “victimless crime.”

Agacinski sees surrogacy as dehumanizing, reducing women to “breeding machines” for a market. Ogien flips it: assuming surrogates are desperate or irrational undermines their dignity. He compares them to doctors or athletes, who act for pay without losing moral worth.

In A City, I see this tension in everyday choices. My roommates’ meticulous chore system feels like a contract—freedom within rules. But surrogacy raises deeper stakes: can you freely “sell” your body’s labor without losing your humanity? Agacinski’s fear of exploitation resonates, but Ogien’s point about autonomy stings—denying someone’s choice because you deem them “not rational enough” feels patronizing. France bans commercial surrogacy, prioritizing child welfare over profit, but I wonder: does that protect women or limit them?

Interest Lending: The Ethics of Profit

The chapter uses Quentin Matsys’ painting The Money Lender and His Wife to explore interest lending. Symbols like pearls (lust) and scales (divine judgment) frame lending as morally fraught. Christianity once resisted capitalism, but post-Reformation, it thrived among Calvinists.

Key Question: Is capitalism moral?
Capitalism champions individual freedom and property, which feels “right” in A City, where I control my budget and time. But wealth inequality—evident in A City’s stark contrast between campus wealth and nearby poverty—shows its flaws. It’s partly moral, partly broken.

Why Does Interest Lending Break the Logic of Giving?
A gift is selfless; lending with interest is a transaction. If I lend $10 and expect $12 back, it’s not generosity—it’s business. In A City, I see this in student loans: they enable education but burden borrowers. High-interest loans feel predatory, exploiting desperation. Yet, reasonable interest seems fair—why lend without gain? Violence in debt collection, though, crosses a line. It exists, but I can’t condone it.

My Reflections

This chapter left me grappling with human nature. Are we selfish? The question feels like a trap. In A City, I see self-interest everywhere—students vying for grades, professors chasing publications. But I also see mutuality: classmates sharing notes, roommates splitting chores. Maybe it’s not about selfishness but survival in context. Even charity—volunteering at a local shelter—can feel self-serving, driven by the high of helping or fear of guilt.

The surrogacy debate mirrors my A City life: freedom to choose (my research, my routine) versus systemic pressures (grades, funding). I lean toward Ogien’s view—trust individuals to decide