The Good City
I don't have much time, but I wanted to write this down.
I am a pessimist and a cynic. I try to fight this inclination, but even when I can ameliorate it, I still see more darkness than some. But I am not completely irreverent. There are still some things that I value about human existence, and most of those things involve other humans. Unfortunately, as a pessimist, I am not that optimistic about "human nature." I believe that the things about humans that I value are pretty fragile, for the most part. They involve caring and peace and humor and loyalty and sacrifice and creativity. All beautiful things that keep me going. But, also, things that can be crushed under the weight of our baser instincts when and if our basic survival is threatened.
So, here's my insight of the day; the goal of the State should be to make it as easy as possible for people to do the right thing. It must be strong and vital to protect something as delicate and fragile as human decency. Because if shit hits the fan, and people start eating each other...well, then, it's just going to be a lot harder to keep getting up in the morning, ya know?
posted by Joe @ 6:34 PM
6 Comments:
Who establishes what the "right thing" is?
I don't know. But, I think there's a general consensus that it involves not hurting other people. I just mean that people need to have enough material resources and comforts, and enough security in those resources, that they don't feel the need to hurt other people (either to get more shit or to protect their own shit). Under those conditions, people can be pretty damn decent at least some of the time.
I think what I’m trying to say is that 99% of people would agree with what you said, the difficulty is putting it into practice. Conservatives tend to believe in the fallacy that material reward is always based on virtue; that personal responsibility is the only factor that determines ones position in society while liberals tend to believe that humanity is a blank slate; that one’s virtue is determined by environmental factors outside of the individual’s control. Based on one’s perspective the form government takes in order to help individuals do the “right thing” could be anything from an anarchist territory to a benevolent North Korea.
Yes, I know. The devil is in the details. As an ex-philosophy student, I enjoy thinking about definitions and general principles that have little to no real consequences.
But I think you're wrong that 99% of people would agree with me. Because, a lot of people have a much higher opinion of human beings than I do. They see the good side of people as being much more hearty and robust. Therefore, they are probably a lot more comfortable with a small and/or weak State. I'm just saying that I want my great artists to be surrounded by men with big guns, and to have access to food and healthcare so they don't die (although, maybe it would make them even better artists). Our baser instincts need to be overpowered by our collective human will, and the best way to keep those instincts down is to feed it well and to beat it well when it gets out of hand.
So are you saying that you think the role of government should be to guarantee people’s physiological (food/water/shelter) and safety (military/police) needs because most non-quakers can find moral justification for just about any action to ensure the survival of themselves or their loved ones? Or removing the possiblity of crisis by the state eliminates the need for questionable actions?
The first one, I think.
Post a Comment
<< Home