I think that, at the center of the budget debates, at the center of the political 'discourse' (or 'disgust') of our nation, there's a real nugget of a philosophical question. Our political landscape, and the viewpoints we all express, may come down to one, albeit two-part, question:
Does 'enlightened self-interest' exist? And if it does, is it the best course of action?
I think the former question is one up for debate, while the latter would most assuredly be a 'yes.' But the question of the existence "enlightened self-interest," or, if you prefer catchy phrases, 'doing good while doing well,' is a tough one, and that's why I'd propose a different kind of philosophy.
"Legally" "Borrowed" from here: http://www.monster-munch.com/images/ISawTheLight.jpg
I think it is tough to tell what kind of "enlightened" decisions to make, because we can't know what actions to take that are 'enlightening.' But humans are okay guessors (although like in Las Vegas, the house always wins), and I think we'd all prefer something a little more solid.
Objectivists and Ayn Rand fans (yes, one in the same) are fond of saying that their philosophy is one of "rational selfishness." Well, with my well-documented feelings towards Ayn Rand, I'd like to break down that phrase into two parts: selfishness, which smells kind of self-"fish-y" (terrible, I know), and "rational." Rationality is fluid and can be debated, because as the Sophists of Ancient Greece showed us, anything can be rationalized, for a price. So just saying "rational" might not be adequate.
But what about "rationing?" We CAN know how much is 'enough' based on our relative position to others, and in terms of our environment, we can know how much soil, air, or water we can take. We CAN know how much food someone needs to eat, or what is considered "adequate" treatment of ourselves and our brethren.
So, I propose "Rationed Self-Interest."
Pretty, stupid, yeah? Let me explain.
"Doing good while doing well" covers a mission-based life--serving others while succeeding personally. And there's nothing wrong with that. But what about sacrifice? I'm not saying you need to all give up your computers in order to pay for membership in the ASPCA, even with guilting commercials (otherwise, who will read this?), but I am saying that sacrifice should play a role too--not really something covered in "doing good while doing well."
(Anytime I make fun of the ASPCA, I always encourage people to donate to their worthy mission--like I do. And I did, so please do, if you are able.)
Sacrifice can come in measured ways--for instance, avoiding excessive purchases. The Protestant leaders of early America, such as John Winthrop, were known for their advocacy of a system which allowed people to pursue their fortunes as they pleased as long as they weren't hurting others--frugality was honorable (something lost to Wall Street). Granted, slavery kind of hurts that argument, but the philosophy was still the same--pursue wealth, but not excess.
However, what many "absolute capitalists" today forget is that our founders were not all about EXCESSIVE purchases, but rather, that wealth should be used to do good in the world. This is a far-cry from the images of wealth we see today--with quarter-million dollar cars, 13 bedroom mansions, private jets, brick ovens just for homemade pizza in the home--a bit excessive.
So rationed self-interest takes into account that people want to live comfortable lives, with nice things--and there's nothing wrong with treating yourself nicely (I can't be against self-niceness). Sacrifice is humbling, and whether it is religion, guilt, peer pressure, or something else that provokes us to give something away while "doing good while doing well," then that's a good enough reason.
We'll never build a better society just by having "someone else" do the work of making it happen--be that the government, mega-billionaires, or even the "social entrepreneurs" or people that 'do the good whilst doing quite well.'
This is a shared duty, because we maintain the "norms" and the rules of a society and a system that produces, for whatever reason, great and growing inequality. But there has to be a change--a more just and equal society cannot be built on the same foundation as one that fails to delivers either justice or equality. As I say all the time, we can disagree on the ways to help the needy, but we shouldn't be disagreeing on helping the needy with "the fierce urgency of now" as MLK would say.
So we should amend the "bumper sticker" to something more like this:
"Do good while doing well, and give a little away, too."
This doesn't have to be just through philanthropy , but it can be through the giving of our time, through listening to people in need, through empathy and friendship, through activism or advocacy, or even through the shared sacrifice of never purchasing another set of spinning rims. These are all forms of sacrifice to our leisure time, our "ignorant bliss," or just contentment with the way things are.
That investment of our selves and our souls may be a great one, but it also has a helluva Return On Investment.
___________________
If you get a second, and your political beliefs align, please consider calling your Congressperson's office about the Congressional Sign-On Letter being circulated in support of the HUD's McKinney-Vento programs that assist (in MANY ways) people that are experiencing homelessness.
No comments:
Post a Comment