Twelfth in a series
Essay #1 Essay #2 Essay #3 Essay #4 Essay #5
Essay #6 Essay #7 Essay #8 Essay #9 Essay #10
The quest continues. As I look back over what I have written so far, I am glad you have persevered (assuming you have read 1 through 11), but yet I see a need to clarify my views again; if for no other reason than to demonstrate that my philosophy is not a selfish, narcissistic creed.
Now, one could look at the values that my culture sees value in and say superficially that it leaves no room for altruism; it leaves no room for others; it simply is the law of the jungle writ large. I agree that it might seem that way, except that I would say that those who see it that way are missing some major points.
First and foremost is the basic foundation of my philosophy is based on the concept of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I call it enlightened self-interest.
What do I mean by “enlightened self-interest” you may ask? Well, it accepts that everything that we do we really do in our own self-interest. You may not accept that but it is a reality that I believe is more than justified. You see we all have choices and the vast majority of the time those choices are driven by what we need and not by what might seem to be in the best interest of the “greater good.”
Note bene: There are people out there who probably are “saints” and truly are unselfishly devoted to the greater good (although I suspect even then they are trying to assuage some feelings of guilt or just to make themselves feel good or better, but that is the cynical old journalist in me talking), but they truly are few and far between. It is their rarity that makes us notice them and call them “saints.” The lesser beings, but ones who see themselves a little more enlightened than the majority, realize that adhering to the Golden Rule accrues benefits over the long run that would unobtainable by merely looking out for one’s self-interest in the short run. Of course, in the society I live in, unfortunately, living for the long term has given way to living merely for the moment. I suspect that will be our downfall. Most people merely see the Golden Rule as “he who has the gold rules” however.
Everything being a result of our choices and those things we were blessed with at birth, basically, therefore, I think that we should be grateful for whatever we have, regardless of how much or how little it may seem to others. I believe that we should be grateful for the mere fact that we are still alive and able to think about the world about us. That truly is a gift we often take too much for granted.
Secondly, in my view, we have to realize that there often is a synergy between individuals who pool their talents and abilities to achieve something larger than could be accomplished by the individual alone. This takes away nothing from the individual but merely recognizes that we all have something to contribute, however small it may seem and that contribution really is vital to the individual’s benefit. But again, the individual benefits from that contribution to the “greater good”, so the scales balance.
And yet, how does one account for truly unselfish acts? How do we account for something like someone willing to give their life to save someone else, a stranger totally unknown to them? Can we account for such things?
I could say that there are no “truly unselfish” acts, but that would be going far deeper than I would have space to explain (but a starting point would be to read Richard Dawkins’ Selfish Gene).
People do such things because they have an instinctive desire to be part of the “whole” or in other words, part of the herd/pack/hive/etc. because by being so, it helps not only the species, but also the gene line, to survive. (So much for my Cliff Notes encapsulation of a concept that probably would take volumes to explain by someone much smarter than I am – and a much better communicator) In essence, however, people don’t do anything without getting something in return, even if it is just an endorphin high.
Remember, there is no free lunch.
So, what should we do about those less fortunate than we are in our society? How do we make it in our self-interest (hence more likely that we will do something) to do things that those who believe in altruism think we should be doing. Obviously, just letting people fall victim to their own fates as happens throughout the other species of the animal kingdom is not an acceptable solution to a rational, thinking species that can discern right and wrong and morality and immorality. Those are the things that set us humans apart from the other species on the planet.
So, what do I see as the obligation in society for the individual to do for the less fortunate? Back to the Golden Rule, folks (not the gold rules rule). What would I want if I was in need of assistance? Ah? Assistance? You got it.
But assistance that comes, if possible, with the understanding that I have the option to opt out. Assistance that comes with the understanding that I am committing myself to some reciprocal obligations: costs and investments from myself. I may not like these costs – these prices that I have to pay – but if I want the assistance, then I have to accept them as part of the deal.
Remember, I am one of those people who thinks that life is a contract and it’s our individual part to honor the terms of that contract.
Yet again, I believe we should have the option to opt out … and if we do, then we also have the concurrent obligation to accept the consequences of that choice, of that decision.
In my humble opinion, the major problem with American society today is that we are way too busy trying to alleviate the consequences for individuals who make less than optimum choices in their lives and to insulate them from the vagaries of life. You see, we have those in our society who think that our society is wealthy enough that everyone can live like kings. They are wrong, but then they can have their view and I will just have to disagree (civilly, mind you).
Still, for those who have, they should have the choice of what assistance they are willing to provide, and I contend to provide that assistance is in their enlightened self-interest to do so. It is in their self-interest.
This article provides excellent examples:
As with courtesy, we have choices as to how and when we provide assistance … and while a case can be made that society through its agent, the government, can and should force us to be courteous and helping, I would argue that perverts the role of government as an arbiter of the social and personal contracts and corrupts society.
Pause to think about that awhile … and maybe you will see my point.
Nuff said for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment