Does the public care about the public interest?

There are two main points to make about all this. The first and positive observation is that at least the time seems to have come to clear the decks. While the political classes of all persuasions cling tenaciously to their limited vocabulary and worldview - 'It's the economy, stupid!' is today's sole fortune cookie message - events are taking their toll. Australia is thus far relatively unscathed, but elsewhere in the West austerity economics and massively increased inequalities are bringing moral questions to the fore. This creates an opportunity for more open debate in which values can be made explicit and the technocratic pretence of objectivity discarded.

The second point, however, is that there is precious little evidence most of us want the sort of well-being and disinterested debate which intellectuals like Keynes and the Skidelskys advocate. Given the findings of the now vast research into human motivation and behaviour - from traditional fields like history and anthropology to the newer sciences like neurophysiology and evolutionary psychology, not to mention behavioural economics - the interesting empirical question is not why the majority of mankind are completely indifferent to the common interest and evidence-based deliberation but why so many are not.

The salient normative argument was most memorably illustrated in John Stuart Mill's rejection of Jeremy Bentham's claim that 'Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry.'Instead, we should appreciate the difference between higher and lower pleasures ('better to be Socrates dissatisfied thana fool satisfied'). To critics, Mill was simply making an arbitrary claim of superiority. The dopamine hits are exactly the same.

In short, it is not only a fact that we tend to enjoy accumulation, celebrity culture and all the other markers of vulgarity, there is no earthly reason that we shouldn't - no matter how sophisticated and persuasive the moral argument might be.

Similarly, we might ask why all media (except perhaps the likes of Popular Mechanics or Extreme Fishing) should not be parti pris. What is this thing called 'the public interest' anyway and why should we be bothered by it? No one is suggesting that people be prevented from reading or watching dross. So why give a privileged position to the high- and fair-minded?

Obviously, for those of a sensitive disposition such opinions are annoying. Among other things, they call into question the place and value of democracy. The tyranny of the majority has been taken to new heights by the advent of polling, focus groups, the so-called 24/7 news cycle, Twitter and all the other itools of narcissism. To survive in the peculiar career they have chosen, politicians more than ever dare not ignore the daily rumblings and resentments of the masses; still less can they pursue even short-term policies that require more than a few moments' thought.

No matter how meticulous their arguments, these sensitive souls have little choice but to cultivate their own garden. To answer the Skidelskys' question above, it may be the case that many will become satiated or disgusted or both by rampant materialism and its tempting discontents, including biased, trivial media. But will we?