The Fable of the Bees Or, Private Vices, Public Benefits

The bees in this hive had doctors, lawyers, merchants, and artisans, all of whom played a role in the society. Some professions thrived on the misfortunes of others—doctors earned money from sickness, lawyers profited from lawsuits, and soldiers found purpose in conflict. The hive’s prosperity depended on competition, ambition, and even a bit of dishonesty.

One day, however, some of the bees began to complain. They wished for a society based on honesty, virtue, and fairness. They believed that the hive would be even better if everyone behaved morally. They prayed for honesty to replace deceit, justice to remove corruption, and modesty to replace greed.

To their surprise, their wish was granted. The dishonest merchants became honest, the corrupt politicians reformed, and the lawyers no longer took advantage of disputes. As people stopped seeking personal gain at the expense of others, industries that once thrived on human weakness began to shrink. The economy slowed, jobs disappeared, and the once-prosperous hive began collapsing.

Without greed and ambition, there was no drive for innovation. Without the need for self-defense, the soldiers were no longer needed. With honesty prevailing, there were fewer lawsuits, and the lawyers became idle. Once a powerful and wealthy society, the hive became weak and inefficient.

Ultimately, the bees who had wished for virtue realized their mistake. Their society had thrived not despite human flaws but because of them. When ambition, competition, and even a little dishonesty were part of the system, everyone had work, and the hive was prosperous.

The story’s moral is that prosperity often depends on self-interest, even if it comes with flaws. A society that seeks to eliminate all vices may also remove the very forces that drive progress and wealth.

This idea parallels themes found in The Fable of the Bees, though Smith took a different approach, emphasizing competition and market efficiency over moral arguments. Both recognized that self-interest can be a powerful force for economic and social progress.

However, much like The Fable of the Bees, Asimov’s story reveals a paradox: the very efforts to eliminate risk, conflict, and upheaval also suppress humanity’s potential for growth, creativity, and exploration. By erasing the challenges that drive innovation, the Eternals inadvertently stunt human progress, particularly the ambition to reach the stars. The novel’s central conflict arises when one of the Eternals, Andrew Harlan, questions whether this controlled “perfection” is genuinely beneficial or if humanity’s messier, risk-filled history would ultimately lead to greater achievements.

Immorality—acts such as lying, cheating, stealing, and even killing—is not an aberration but a potential aspect of our nature, shaped by evolutionary pressures alongside virtues like cooperation, trust, and fairness. While we are capable of vice, we are equally capable of moral behavior, and both tendencies have been essential for human survival. Within our own tribe—our close social group, family, or community—we tend to favor fairness and reciprocity, as strong social bonds enhance collective well-being. However, history and psychology suggest that our moral instincts can shift depending on context, sometimes leading to self-serving behaviors when dealing with those outside our immediate group. Yet this is not a rigid law; societies have long developed institutions, cultural norms, and ethical frameworks to extend cooperation beyond tribal boundaries.

If we accept these premises, we must ask: What does this tell us about the challenge of creating a better world? If immorality is not simply a matter of individual failure but is a recurring feature of human nature, what strategies should we adopt? Should we seek to suppress these instincts, redirect them, or structure society in ways that channel them toward productive ends?

This brings us to The Fable of the Bees and Bernard Mandeville’s provocative argument that private vices can lead to public benefits. While Mandeville suggested that self-interest—when properly directed—can drive economic and social progress, he did not argue that all immoral behaviors contribute positively to society. Adam Smith, for example, built on this idea by distinguishing between self-interest that fuels productivity and destructive behaviors that undermine trust. If some degree of self-interest is inevitable, how do we design social, economic, and political systems that encourage beneficial forms while curbing those that lead to harm?

Rather than beginning with moral idealism or cynicism, this line of thinking challenges us to take a pragmatic approach: acknowledging human nature while recognizing that morality is not static. Ethical progress has never been about simply suppressing vice; it has also involved fostering the conditions under which cooperation, fairness, and trust can thrive. The question, then, is not just how we can make people more virtuous but how we can build systems that incentivize ethical behavior while managing the more self-serving aspects of human nature.