Moral, Legal, and Political Philosophy of W.S.Gilbert

An example of what I take Gilbert's attitude towards harsh punishment of offenders.
In this case, a "Billiard Sharp"

I presented "The Moral, Legal, and Political Philosophy of W.S. Gilbert" at the Philosophy Club of The Villages, FL, on 23 September, to an enthusiastic audience (Including a bit of singing, thanks Moe).

MAY WE DISCERN THE PHILOSOPHY OF AUTHORS FROM THEIR WORKS?

William Schwenck Gilbert wrote the words and oversaw the production of 14 "Gilbert and Sullivan" comic operas from 1871 through 1896. (Sullivan composed the music). They have become staples of English-language "light" entertainment over the past century. In addition to being Plain Fun, I believe the lyrics embody the actual philosophical attitude of Gilbert, who, IMHO, in the era of Queen Victoria, would have been a Tory (aligned with Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli) rather than a Liberal (aligned with Prime Minister William Gladstone).

"THEIR CUSTOMARY ATTITUDE"

At the end of my talk, I asked the audience to rise and act out what the First Lord of the Admiralty (in HMS Pinafore) called "The Customary Attitude" of a "British Tar" (a lowly seaman).

I retitled that epic piece "An American" and, most recently, have made it gender-neutral. (See adjacent image.)

As our children and grandchildren were growing up, we'd act it out together. When I'd ask "what is your Customary Attitude?" they'd assume the fighting stance suggested  by Gilbert. (Now that the youngest are in college, I don't know if that request works anymore. However, if any of them are reading this right now, I'd like to know!)

In any case, by placing this at the end of my talk, with the audience on their feet, I was guaranteed a "standing ovation".


SUMMARY OF MY TALK

I drew Philosophical Issues from five operettas:

• Trial by Jury (1875 - the second Gilbert and Sullival collaboration, and their first real success)
  Philosophical Issues: Nepotism, Martial Fidelity, Sexism, Enforcing Contracts, Need for Bias-Free Court, Judicial Restraint
• HMS Pinafore  (1878 - the fourth collaboration, and a wild success, with about 150 unauthorized rip-offs by American theater companies)
  Philosophical Issues: Social Class, Private vs Public Jobs, True Love, People Believe What They Want to Believe, Altruism
• Pirates of Penzance  (1879 - the fifth collaboration, and a similarly wild success. Penzance was first performed on Broadway, in New York City, in an attempt to thwart the US "copyright pirates")
  Philosophical Issues: Is there an Absolute Duty to Comply with Contracts? Should Military Leaders Have Military Knowledge?
• The Mikado (1885 - the ninth collaboration, continuing their successful run)
  Philosophical Issue: Let the Punishment Fit the Crime
• Utopia, Limited (1893 - the thirteenth. It was only a modest success, and with the failure of their next play, their last success together.)
  Philosophical Issue:  The Ideal Utopian Form of Government, Imperialism, Jingoism (extreme nationalism), “Progress” Based on British Model (only Better :^), The Folly of Nation Building

Trial by Jury (1875) - For breach of promise of marriage 

Gilbert illustrates how nepotism may be the key to getting ahead in life. And how marital fidelity may be violated. Also how really good lawyers are the ones who trick the legal system into declaring "innocent" those who are actually guilty.

The JUDGE explains how he obtained his position:

… I was, as many young barristers are, An impecunious party. … [with never] a chance Of addressing a British Jury.… So I fell in love with a rich attorney's Elderly, ugly daughter.

The rich attorney, he jumped with joy / And replied to my fond professions: / "You shall reap the reward of your pluck, my boy, / At the Bailey and Middlesex sessions. / You'll soon get used to her looks," said he, / "And a very nice girl you will find her! / She may very well pass for forty-three / In the dusk, with a light behind her."

The rich attorney was good as his word;  / The briefs came trooping gaily, / And every day my voice was heard / At the Sessions or Ancient Bailey.

All thieves who could my fees afford / Relied on my orations.  / And many a burglar I've restored / To his friends and his relations.

At length I became rich. / An incubus then I thought her. / So I threw over that rich attorney's / Elderly, ugly daughter. / The rich attorney my character high / Tried vainly to disparage. / And now, if you please, / I'm ready to try / This Breach of Promise of Marriage!

Gilbert satirizes the idea of a bias-free trial. He has an observer express favoritism to the pretty "broken-hearted bride" plaintiff, clearly sexism, -- then he has a court officer meaninglessly repeat the (already violated) rule against bias:

Oh, listen to the plaintiff's case: / Observe the features of her face--/ The broken-hearted bride. / Condole with her distress of mind. 

From bias free of every kind, / This trial must be tried! 

Then the disfavor towards the "ruffianly" defendant, sexism again, and again the rule against bias:

And when, amid the plaintiff's shrieks, / The ruffianly defendant speaks-- / Upon the other side; / What he may say you needn't mind:

From bias free of every kind, /This trial must be tried!

The trial drags on for quite a while, with the pretty Plaintiff flirting with the Jury, the Court Officers, and, especially, the Judge. Then, the JUDGE (tossing his books and papers about):

All the legal furies seize you! / No proposal seems to please you. / I can't sit up here all day, / I must shortly get away.

Put your briefs upon the shelf, ' I will marry her myself!

PROBLEM SOLVED! Many (perhaps all) the Gilbert and Sullivan comic operas end abruptly, with a broad-stroke surprise ending that (if you are willing to believe it) solves a very complex problem.

The key here, is that ALL the participants are happy with the ending. The plaintiff gets to marry the Judge, a man with higher standing  than the defendant. The defendant gets out from under his breach of promise of marriage. And, of course, the Judge gets a pretty, young wife!

HMS Pinafore (1878) - The (un)importance of social class 

Does true love triumph over social class? Does the private sector reward hard work and excellence, while the public sector rewards party loyalty? This operetta starts with a problem of true love. A lowly sailor loves his Captain's daughter, and the feeling is mutual. However, the Captain has promised his daughter's hand to the his ultimate boss, the First Lord of the Admiralty.

RALPH RACKSTRAW (lowly seaman): I love the captains’ daughter - alas above my station. Captains’ daughters don’t marry foremast jacks. 

CAPTAIN: My daughter Josephine, the fairest flower, is sought in marriage by Sir Joseph Porter, K.C.B, first Lord of the Admiralty.  (Knight Commander of the Bath) 

JOSEPHINE: I cannot love him. The object of my love is but a humble sailor aboard your own ship.

SIR JOSEPH – Explains how he obtained his position.

When I was a lad I served a term / As office boy to an Attorney's firm. / I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor, / And I polished up the handle of the big front door. / I polished up that handle so carefullee, / That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee! 

... They gave me the post of a junior clerk. / I served the writs with a smile so bland, / And I copied all the letters in a big round hand. / I copied all the letters in a hand so free, / That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee! 

… I wore clean collars and a brand-new suit / For the pass examination at the Institute. / That pass examination did so well for me, / That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!  

... Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip, that they took me into the partnership. (The only ship that I ever had seen.) / … I grew so rich that I was sent / By a pocket borough into Parliament./ I always voted at my party's call, / And I never thought of thinking for myself at all./ I thought so little, they rewarded me / By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!  

Now landsmen all, whoever you may be, / If you want to rise to the top of the tree, / If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool, / Be careful to be guided by this golden rule. / Stick close to your desks and never go to sea, / And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee! 

 Back to the true love problem. It falls to Buttercup, a "Bumboat woman" who sells tobacco and other supplies to sailors, to help resolve everything. She begins with a seemingly random bunch of unrelated truths, then gets to the main point:

Things are seldom what they seem, / Skim milk masquerades as cream; / … Black sheep dwell in every fold;  All that glitters is not gold; / … Gild the farthing if you will, / Yet it is a farthing still.  / … Wink is often good as nod; / Spoils the child who spares the rod.… 

A many years ago, When I was young and charming, / As some of you may know, I practiced baby-farming. / Two tender babes I nursed: One was of low condition, / The other, upper crust, A regular patrician.  

Oh, bitter is my cup! However could I do it? / I mixed those children up, And not a creature knew it! In time each little waif Forsook his foster-mother, / The well born babe was Ralph. / Your Captain was the other! A many years ago. 

 Sir Joseph sums it all up, and quickly resolves the issue:

JOSEPH: Then I am to understand that Captain Corcoran and Ralph were exchanged in childhood's happy hour? Ralph is really the Captain, / and the Captain is Ralph?

Ralph and the Captain switch positions. Josephine (now a seaman’s daughter) is in a social class too low to marry Sir Joseph. Therefore, Josephine and (newly promoted) Captain Ralph are free to marry!

PROBLEM SOLVED! But only if we (the audience) are willing to accept the word of an old woman about something that happened many years ago. The characters in the story accept because it is to their advantage to do so. Sir Joseph avoids the dishonor of being turned down by Josephine, who stands much lower than he on the social scale. Josephine gets to marry her true love, who is now a Captain, and he gets to marry Josephine. The former Captain, now a lowly seaman seems to get the short end of the stick. Had his daughter married Sir Joseph, nepotism might have raised him still higher in rank. on the other hand, his kin-altruism for his daughter, motivates his acquiescence, 

Pirates of Penzance  (1879) - A slave of duty

Gilbert satirizes two key issues in this comic opera.

• Is there an Absolute Duty to Comply with Contracts? What if, as in the case of the main character of Penzance, Frederic, you were mistakenly apprenticed to a band of PIRATES? Frederic is a self-described "slave of duty", so his answer is "yes" (despite a paradoxical further complication). 
• Should Military Leaders Have Military Knowledge? One would think so. Yet, perhaps academic knowledge is more important than actual military experience? 

Frederic's nursery maid, Ruth, who is now a member of the pirate band tells what happened:

When Frederic was a little lad he proved so brave and daring, / His father thought he’d ’prentice him to some career seafaring. / I was, alas! his nurserymaid, and so it fell to my lot / To take and bind the promising boy apprentice to a PILOT – …/ I was a stupid nurserymaid, on breakers always steering, And I did not catch the word aright, through being hard of hearing; …/ I took and bound this promising boy apprentice to a PIRATE. / A sad mistake it was to make and doom him to a vile lot. … 

A nurserymaid is not afraid of what you people call work, So I made up my mind to go as a kind of piratical maid-of-all-work. 

 We jump ahead to the day Frederic is 21 years old, and out of his pirate apprenticeship (or so we think): 

PIRATE KING. Yes, Frederic, from to-day you rank as a full-blown member of our band.  

FREDERIC: My friends, I thank you all … Today I am out of my indentures, and today I leave you forever … I have done my best for you. … It was my duty under my indentures, and I am the slave of duty. As a child I was regularly apprenticed to your band. It was through an error -- no matter, the mistake was ours, not yours, and I was in honor bound by it. … 

Oh! pity me, my beloved friends, for such is my sense of duty that, once out of my indentures, I shall feel myself bound to devote myself heart and soul to your extermination! … 

PIRATE: We don’t seem to make piracy pay. … 

FREDERIC: I know why, but, alas! I mustn’t tell you … 

PIRATE: Why not, my boy? It’s only half-past eleven, and you are one of us until the clock strikes twelve. 

FREDERIC: Well, then, it is my duty, as a pirate, to tell you that you are too tenderhearted. For instance, you make a point of never attacking a weaker party than yourselves, and when you attack a stronger party you invariably get thrashed. … 

Then, again, you make a point of never molesting an orphan [because you are orphans yourselves] and it has got about, and what is the consequence? Every one we capture says he’s an orphan. The last three ships we took proved to be manned entirely by orphans, and so we had to let them go. …

 Gilbert needs to satirize a military man, as he did with (Sir Joseph in Pinafore), so in comes the Major-General, candidly introducing himself:

I am the very model of a modern Major-General, / I’ve information vegetable, animal, and mineral, … / I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical, ... 

I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical, / About binomial theorem I’m teeming with a lot o’ news – / With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse. / I’m very good at integral and differential calculus; / I know the scientific names of beings animalculous: / In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, I am the very model of a modern Major-General. … 

[He goes on recounting his academic knowledge in history, ancient languages, and other areas. However, let us skip to his Military knowledge.]

… In fact, when I know what is meant by “mamelon” and “ravelin”, / When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin, / When such affairs as sorties and surprises I’m more wary at, / And when I know precisely what is meant by “commissariat”, / When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery, When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery;… 

For my military knowledge, though I’m plucky and adventury, / Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century; / But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, / I am the very model of a modern Major-General. …

Frederic leaves the pirate band and tries to organize a Police raid on the Pirates. However, the Pirates sneak into town to inform him of a humorous paradox.

PIRATE: A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox, / We’ve quips and quibbles heard in flocks, but none to beat this paradox…You’ve lived twenty-one years, but, having been born in leap-year, on the twenty-ninth of February, if we go by birthdays, you’re only five and a little bit over!

FREDERIC: How quaint the ways of Paradox! / At common sense she gaily mocks! / Though counting in the usual way, / Years twenty-one I’ve been alive, / Yet, reckoning by my natal day, I am a little boy of five!  

PIRATE: The contract says you are indentured until your twenty-first BIRTHDAY (not YEAR). So you’ll be a Pirate until you live 84 years! …

 OOPS! So Frederic, forever the "slave of duty" is a Pirate again. How to resolve this issue?

… A struggle ensues between Pirates and Police, the Police are overcome and fall prostrate, … 

POLICE SARGENT: Your proud triumph will not be long-lived. 

PIRATE KING. Don’t say you are orphans, for we know that game. 

SARGENT: On your allegiance we’ve a stronger claim – We charge you yield, we charge you yield, In Queen Victoria’s name! 

KING. (baffled) You do? 

POLICE. We do! We charge you yield, In Queen Victoria’s name! 

KING. We yield at once, with humbled mien, Because, with all our faults, we love our Queen. [Sometimes read "with all HER faults ..." :^) 

RUTH: One moment! let me tell you who they are. They are no members of the common throng; They are all noblemen who have gone wrong.                    

PROBLEM SOLVED! Again, if we believe an old woman. But we DO, as do the characters in the comic opera, because we all love a happy ending.

The Mikado (1885) - The (Japanese) Town of Titipu

I only had a half-hour for my talk at The Villages Philosophy Club, so I had to leave out so many other examples, and cut short my treatment of The Mikado. The only issue I cover here is: Should the punishment fit the crime? Gilbert seems to favor harsh, yet humorous, punishment. Though the comic opera is set in Japan, Gilbert is clearly making fun of English society. Here, the Emperor of Japan states his philosophy:

My object all sublime I shall achieve in time / To let the punishment fit the crime – / The punishment fit the, crime; / And make each prisoner pent / Unwillingly represent / A source of innocent merriment! /Of innocent merriment!

… All prosy dull society sinners, /Who chatter and bleat and bore, / Are sent to hear sermons / From mystical Germans / Who preach from ten till four.

… The advertising quack who wearies / With tales of countless cures, / His teeth, I’ve enacted, / Shall all be extracted / By terrified amateurs.

… The billiard sharp whom any one catches, / His doom’s extremely hard – / He’s made to dwell – / In a dungeon cell / On a spot that’s always barred. / And there he plays extravagant matches – / In fitless finger-stalls / On a cloth UNTRUE / with a TWISTED cue / And ELIPTICAL billiard BALLS!

Utopia, Limited (1893) - The Flowers of Progress 

In theory, King Paramount is the Absolute Monarch of Utopia, an idyllic, though primitive, South Sea Island. The King rules with the assistance of two "Wise Men", and "The Public Exploder.".

The Public Exploder is a crazy guy who follows the King around carrying a Stick of Dynamite and Matches. He continually expresses his desire to do his job and blow the King to smithereens. However, he is sworn to do so only when the two Wise Men agree that the time has come.

Since the Wise Men are overly intellectual and wooly-brained, they never agree, so the King is safe, more or less, but he never can tell what may happen. This arrangement has resulted in a happy and healthy society, albeit primitive by British standards.

King Paramount is a great admirer of English Culture. He hires an English Governess for his youngest daughters and sends his eldest daughter to college in England.  She returns with "The Flowers of Progress", six highly esteemed English gentlemen who are tasked with making Utopia as advanced as England, and, they think, perhaps much better. The Flowers of Progress are:  Lord Dramaleigh (a British Lord Chamberlain),       Captain Fitzbattleaxe (First Life Guards),  Captain Sir Edward Corcoran, K.C.B. (of the Royal Navy),  Mr. Goldbury (a company promoter; afterwards Comptroller of the Utopian Household), and  Sir Bailey Barre, Q.C., M.P. Mr. Blushington (of the County Council).  

Of course, they make a total hash out of it! I don't have the time or energy to go into all the details, but the worst item of "progress" is the way they establish Limited Liability Corporations.

The advent of Limited Liability Corporations in England and elsewhere is clearly a key element in the rapid development and economic success of Western European countries in the 1800s. Unlike partnerships, where each partner is separately responsible for any losses of the enterprise, a Corporation imposes limited liability on individual Stockholders.

Mr. Goldbury, the company promoter put in charge of Utopian finances, comes to the "obvious" conclusion that, if limited liability is  Good Thing, the lower the liability limit the Better! So, they set the limit very, very low, at 18 pence.

Of course, a great many Corporations are immediately founded in what is, in effect "Utopia, Limited". However, shortly after they borrow money for their operations, and accept money from customers for promised products and services, they go BANKRUPT. All they have to lose is 18 pence!

This throws Utopia, Limited into revolt. What "essential element" of English governmental excellence is missing? Well, Princess Zara, the King's British-educated daughter comes up with the "obvious answer": "Government by political party"! OY. OY, OY!

Ira Glickstein

Socialist Utopia Found and Lost

A relative by marriage spent a number of years in a Kibbutz (communal living) in Israel. She recently described how this seemingly idealistic lifestyle, which she enjoyed when she lived there about forty years ago, has since succumbed to the worldly pressures of capitalism.

NOTE (added 10 Sep): At my invitation, the relative mentioned above has posted a Comment below, using the "Anonymous" option. As she mentions, there was lots of information coming at me rapidly and I was not taking written notes, so I got some information factually wrong. I thank my relative for Commenting and I have corrected my Topic text to indicate the corrections. [Changes are indicated by brackets. Material in quotes is from her Comment below.] My erroneous text has been grayed out. I appologize for the incorrect information I included in my original posting.

As she recounted her time in a small (100 person) non-religious (no rabbis allowed) kibbutz south of Beer Sheva in the Negev desert, I found myself drawn by the idealism of the concept and the reality that it could (and did) exist here on Earth during my lifetime. I was sorry to hear how and why she and her husband left the kibbutz for a new life in the US and how, on two subsequent visits, she found the original concept diluted to the point she hardly recognized it.

Could it be that this dedicated C-mind (me) has some L-mind memes kicking around?

Her utopian story awakened my idealistic, utopian imagination!

HER UTOPIAN STORY

She was born and raised in the US in a non-practicing Jewish family and met her husband-to-be while he was visiting from Israel. He had spent his teenage years living on a kibbutz. They married and ended up living in a small kibbutz, one of a group of three that were some distance from each other and quite far from any other settlements.

Living arrangements were simple. Each couple had use of their tiny apartment with a bedroom and a shower and toilet. Everything else was communal.

Children lived in a separarate building and were, in essence, raised by the whole community. With only 100 people, everyone knew everyone else and took responsibility for every child. I was reminded of the saying "it takes a village to raise a child" - in this case it was literally true. (That "African proverb" was made famous by first lady Hillary Clinton's 1996 book It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us.)

The main work at the kibbutz was farming. They raised much of their own food and sold the excess to fund purchases of supplies. There was sufficient social pressure to assure that everyone worked relatively hard. Work was distributed to everyone according to their abilities. For example, she told me, one man, who was blind, was kept busy sorting lumber by size by feeling it. Another, who was mentally handicapped, was given tasks he could accomplish despite his limitations. Everyone did their share of "grunt" work on the farm and took turns preparing, serving, and cleaning up after communal meals.

No one was paid for their work, except for a small "stipend" that could be used to buy personal items. Social pressure and the public nature of communal living assured that everyone consumed only what they needed.

No one was "in charge". She told me there was one designated person who dealt with the external authorities, but he had no special authority within the kibbutz. There were regular meetings attended by all adults and decisions were reached by general consensus.

Thus, the kibbutz was a living example of the Karl Marx slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (1875). (I have refrained from calling this kibbutz "communist" because that word has gathered the "bad breath" of the totalitarian examples of Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. I think it is better to think of it as idealistic socialism.)

HOW UTOPIA DECLINED

So, I asked, if it was so ideal, why did you and your husband leave?

Well, it turned out that her husband ["wanted to be a success in the business world."] was not satisfied with the productivity of the work arrangements. He, along with some others, wanted to start a factory and hire outsiders to work there and also supply labor for the farm. ["The philosophy of this kibbutz was that all work was to be done by members and if something required extra hands, that work would not be undertaken if it required becoming a 'boss' to outside 'workers.' This arose in one case because we had a few extra fields where peanuts or potatoes could be planted, but not enough 'hands' to do the work, so the fields remained fallow."] The problem with that was the idealistic idea that no one should have any employees and no one should work for anyone else. The whole problem with capitalism, according to this view, is ownership of the means of production by the capitalist class and the necessary exploitation of labor class that that system implies.

Shortly before she and her husband left the kibbutz, a decision was reached to purchase a communal TV set. That, in her opinion, was the beginning of the end of the kibbutz as she knew it!

They came to the US where they completed their educations and found professional employment and raised their family.

THE END OF UTOPIA

She made two subsequent visits to her former kibbutz and sadly recounted how things had changed.

A decision was reached to build a factory and hire outside workers. ["There is now a factory for polymers, but there are only three workers, none hired from outside. The crops have changed to amaryllis for export rather than crops for local and internal consumption. And there is the major difference that they have migrant workers for the fields (interestingly, from Thailand primarily) -- which is so against the Marxist philosophical foundation)."] With additional income, kibbutz members demanded larger stipends and used that money to purchase their own record players and other luxuries.

Children no longer lived in separate housing. Apartments were enlarged to accommodate entire families.

As outside workers were hired to work the farm, more and more kibbutz members found employment outside the kibbutz. The number of kibbutz members working the farm declined to six (out of the total membership that remained about 100). Those earning larger salaries in their outside employment objected to giving their entire earnings to the kibbutz to be shared equally with those working the farm. ["More members now work outside the kibbutz than inside the kibbutz, but it is not true that they resent having their larger salary pooled back into a central source. "] Demands were made for larger stipends and they were met. The level of privately-owned luxuries increased. ["As exposure to material comforts increases, through television and movies -- and the consumer movement, the stipends must grow."]

More and more non-kibbutz Israelis settled in areas near the kibbutz until it was no longer remote from outside influences. The kibbutz had houses built on some of their former farmlands and rented them to non-members. ["While some kibbutzem do rent out houses for outsiders, the kibbutz where I worked and lived does not. Interestingly, of the 100 plus people who lived there in the '60's, so many have remained! I was truly astonished at how many old friends were still there. Of course, the obverse is also true, I did not see that many new people and changes, such as the pending decision to allow individual automobiles, is being pushed by the newer members."]

I must confess I was sad to hear how their utopian, idealistic socialism had been corrupted by capitalistic tendencies. The kibbutz members were now owners of a factory and farm that employed others as laborers and also landlords of rental properties. Oy!

ANY LESSON FROM THIS?

Well, we have been led to believe that democratic socialism does not go far enough and that "real communism" has never been tried.

The problem, we have been told, was with tyrants like Stalin and Mao and others who distorted communism and replaced the privileged capitalist class with "The New Class" (Milovan Djilas) of privileged Communist ruling elite.

The problem was the large scale of supposedly communist countries.

However, the story above has no tyrants at all. It is on a small scale of 100 people who voluntarily agreed to come together on a kibbutz. And yet, it still failed to maintain the idealistic utopian concept. [This apparently was an overstatement by me. My relative disagrees: "I think that by and large it still has maintained most of its Marxist underpinnings, but they are being eroded by time and a shrinking world. The kibbutz movement started primarily from a harsh need; how to survive and how to build an agrarian community with only a handful of people."]

Perhaps the problem is the basic concept: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

Perhaps it is irreversibly at odds with inate human nature?

Ira Glickstein