Sovesti and how to ruin a good thing

Sovesti is a well known Russian word in Moldova with no exact translation in English. It is (in my opinion) a word oozing of communist mentality. You usually say “don’t you have any sovesti” – with the sense that “don’t you realize that sharing is the right thing to do (don’t you appreciate me enough to share something with me (even if you don’t, I’ve done a lot of stuff for you so I deserve it (and so if you don’t do this, I’m not going to do stuff for you anymore either!)))). Funny how quickly sovesti becomes a game of counting favors. I don’t mind counting favors, but I’d rather count them upfront – in the first set of parenthesis – not in the plotting, back stabbing back of my mind – in the fourth set of parenthesis.

But more generally - is morally enforced sharing a good thing? That is, is it really a good thing to create a society in which not sharing is a sin?

Back to America: I buy a candy bar, and you are standing next to me. In a “not sharing is a sin” world, I automatically feel bad for not giving you some of it. I, by the simple act of purchasing something for myself and wanting it for myself, have committed a sin. If you are bold enough to ask, I must give it to you. However, you probably won’t ask for it (since asking is presumptuous) and so I have to offer it to you – I have to give you something I want to keep, and I have to make you take it. If I don’t, you could scold me for my sin as our kindergarten teachers did when we didn’t share the glitter. WHAT CRAZINESS!

You might be saying that if I was a good person, a true sharer, I would not feel bad by giving some of my candy bar to you. I would, in fact, feel good, the sharing would touch my spirit of goodness and inject even more dopamine into my brain than would have been injected by eating that tiny bit of candy I gave away. Equally, I would realize that over time, my sharing and other people’s sharing would equal out, and we’d all be better off. Well, it’s true, I’m not a true sharer – but the world will probably not equal out because there will always be those who intentionally take more than they give (see my water bottle story). Worst part is, they usually are the most vocal sharers. They’re the ones who leave 5 dollars less when in large groups at restaurants, or do nice little tasks - like cleaning up a room – while expecting much more valuable tasks to be done in return, through the natural process of sharing, of course. They are such vocal sharers because they depend on the system to continue in order to take advantage of it.

It’s not that the people are inherently bad – it’s just that everyone figures out how to maximize their happiness, which often (though not always) means maximizing profit while minimizing work. But we should never create systems in which deviants – those whose actions run against the tenets of the system – can thrive without being detected. If we could easily detect and openly finger and correct those individuals who take and don’t give, the system could continue without being systematically taken advantage of (this has been tried – it didn’t work out). But we can’t, and so it goes on in the cheaters’ favor.

And so this is why I think the system of “not sharing is a sin” is fundamentally flawed. It doesn’t mean I’ll never give you a piece of my candy bar – I might. But I don’t have to. I will feel no remorse in not giving it to you, and you should feel no anger for not receiving it. So my act of kindness will be just that: a conscious, unforced kind act, a plain old good thing - not one forced on me by some societal idea of sharing, leaving me jaded and annoyed.

And so we will both have sovesti which we will count in every transaction seperately, and the back stabbing, favor-counting parts of our minds will have nothing to mull over because it will all be brought to the surface, where public thoughts and actions should be.