This is a damning condemnation of society in general, but especially of those who are entrusted with the pursuit of justice. Most lawyers enter the profession saying they want to help people or make a difference, and they are counted upon to do so. However, the majority end up working for firms where their only concern is to win whatever case is put before them regardless of the social costs of winning that case or the opportunity costs of not taking on others. Individual goals and notions of serving the common good are exchanged for making money for the firm and enjoying a share of the profits. How do lawyers find themselves in this position? The answer seems to be that this is what successful people do. It’s hardly a stretch to say that those who become lawyers have an interest in being “successful.” It is a career that requires a large initial investment of time and money, and which ultimately rewards its professionals with status, prestige, and affluence. But what reason do we have to equate wealth with success in the first place? There is no reason to believe that the actions which the profit motive incentivizes coincide with those that promote an individual’s sense of well-being. There is even less reason to believe that these actions will necessarily further justice or benefit society. A status culture which occludes the value of the pursuit of social justice with the values of envy, prestige and material affluence potentially reduces the legal profession from the foundation of a legitimate society to a mere commercial enterprise pursuing no higher virtues or ends, and thereby undermines society as a whole.

This seeming conflict between individual and social needs is not inherent to society. Every now and then an article will pop up exclaiming confusion over an apparent paradox. Although the standard of living in America has increased, people are no happier than they used to be! This assumes that satisfaction and self-worth can be attained through the pursuit of wealth, but what do the wealthy actually gain from their increased ability to possess? The most obvious result is affluence. They can afford to purchase what’s newest and best, and satisfy their immediate desires. However, since there will always be newer and better things to desire, this ability to purchase doesn’t result in a lasting sense of satisfaction, but instead an insatiable desire for more. There is a constant push to get a bigger house and a better car despite the stress of debt and work, submission, power harassment and general un-freedom required to attain these things. In addition, medical studies have recognized the connection between stress and heart disease in America, and the Japanese have coined the term Karoshi to describe the recent phenomenon of the sudden death of executives from overwork. Why go through this when a luxury car isn’t necessarily more reliable or beautiful than a standard car, and a pair of old jeans are more comfortable than a pair of business slacks? The real achievement is not the possessions themselves, but rather the envy that an ability to possess inspires in others. When De Tocqueville conducted his study of American society in 1831, he observed an increase in status anxiety as a result of the move from a hierarchical to an egalitarian society. Unlike their counterparts in Britain who accepted the level they were born into, Americans were meant to be equals in terms of rights and opportunities, and therefore any disparities in wealth led to feelings of stress and envy if anyone else should have more. As a result of this phenomenon, those who can afford what others cannot enjoy a higher social status, but one that is based on envy rather than respect or admiration. To equate these ends of envy, prestige, and affluence with success is to misunderstand what is of value to people and the conditions of their self-worth. The result of this is waking up one day in a “what-is-life-really-about” stupor and wondering why, if you’ve succeeded at the task, don’t you feel successful? This does serious damage to the individual’s self-worth, which presumably motivated the desire to succeed in the first place.

In order for success to resonate with people in a way that increases their self-worth, it needs to be based in things of real human value. After subsistence, what is it we need for happiness? Chilean economist, Max-Neef suggests that the modern economist’s view of the human psyche as a bottomless pit of material desire is grossly mistaken. Instead, he believes that there are 9 fundamental human needs (subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, recreation, creation, identity, and freedom) which are non-material in nature. Also, he says that these needs are nonhierarchical, and describes poverty as the frustration or lack of any one of these. More recently, Alain de Botton has argued that the pursuit of prestige is just a vain attempt to address concerns of one’s own worthlessness. If what people ultimately desire is to feel that they are worth something and their actions have value, then the pursuit of fundamental non-material needs will be far more satisfying.

The successful lawyer, like the successful individual, is one who knows what they value and makes contributions toward those ends. If pursuing actions that have value to the individual result in self-worth and respect that matters, then the lawyer who values justice will feel successful when they work to further justice in some respect. Thus self-interest is only at odds with the pursuit of justice under a dangerously shallow and inadequate interpretation of human interest. The American legal system and even the university are culpable in the degradation of the individual and in the encumbrance of justice by promoting these mistaken conceptions of value and monetarily incentivizing an indifference to justice.