First of all, skim this sad story on child laborers in Kenya.
I read this recently and it got me thinking about our priorities in birth, sustaining life, education, and general health. Why, for example, do some conservatives care so much about the life of a "child" (better known by its actual name: Mr. Fetus) before it is born, and then cease to care about it the moment it emerges from the birth canal? We will force you to have that thing, lady! But, oh, you wanted some health care for it now that it's breathing on its own? Um, sorry, that's socialist.
Why do doctors spend dozens of hours separating conjoined twins while half a world away children die because they can't get clean drinking water? We know the answer: prestige. But cast that aside and the operation seems like a strange way to prioritize.
And let's say we do bring those poor third-world children clean drinking water. We'd be hailed as heroes. Look at all the lives we're saving! But that begs the question: are they "lives"? So the children with the swollen bellies live to see another day. That's a start. Can we give them an education? Or will they--like the kids in the article--end up slave laborers and selling goats for a penny. Is that a life? Even if you answer "yes," is that a life worth living?
Rationing Uteruses
So how do we address the problem? Do we institute a "one child per family" rule like China? That seems unthinkable in fiercely independently minded America. But when world overpopulation starts to ration even our Big Macs and drinking water (used to make fatty fat soda, obviously), someone is going to have to start limiting childbirths.
Can we expect people to do it on their own? Doubtful. Even if the Kenyan parents in the article had an unlimited supply of condoms and exquisite sex education, one suspects they still would have reproduced. And why not? It's natural. It's instinctual. And, heck, people get horny. Not to mention that in many cultures, couples have children because they know the kids may be the only ones who will take care of them when they're old. Should the Kenyan parents sit down, take a look around, and say, "Honey, we can't bring a child into this world. It's not kind. It's not right."? One could argue that they should... but that's asking too much, particularly without other governmental or social support systems in place to ensure the elders' care when they become frail.
Perhaps we turn to the government. Is it fair to impose an across-the-board "one child" policy like China? Perhaps. But imagine a world stuffed full of people and only needing enough new births to sustain an already overloaded planet. Shouldn't we make good choices? Should the smart people be allowed to reproduce? The attractive people? The athletic people? Will there be a quota for all the above in order to sustain industry, Hollywood, and sports? Won't the lower classes mount a fierce defense that even an Einstein or a Michael Jordan could come from their midst?
Eugenics is an awfully dangerous road to go down. Even before Hitler taught us the unthinkable depths of its horrors, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the forced sterilization of a poor woman on the grounds that she was an "imbecile," though researchers later showed that she was--if anything--a quite average student in school. (See Buck v. Bell.) Perhaps the mere suggestion that it might be legal to keep certain people from reproducing is far too great of a temptation for bureaucrats to administer the challenge without prejudice.
Life... at Any Cost
The end of life presents the same problem. I read once that one-third of all Medicare payments go toward sustaining patients in their last year of life, barely prolonging the inevitable. Recently, I've begun to see articles in the mainstream media about how doctors may encourage patients too hard to fight, fight, fight against their cancer rather than accept palliative care and slip away in peace and comfort. As one doctor aptly put it: through medical advancements, we've expanded our ability to prolong life but not our ability to make life more livable.
For the present, a majority of people are opposed to euthanasia. Though I could find no statistics, I strongly suspect a majority would likewise be opposed to any law that would prohibit most people's right to reproduce. We comfort ourselves by thinking morality is largely static. Indeed, it has a way of bending and even breaking when times get tough. It will be interesting to see what the general consensus becomes on limiting childbirths and pulling the plug on grandma when overpopulation and fiscal pressures are brought to bear in the not-so-distant future.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
How to Win Friends and Influence People(?)
Last week, the Republicans in the U.S. Senate (joined by two Dems plus Harry Reid for procedural reasons) filibustered an attempt to debate the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. My lawyer friend Donnie posted a comment on his Facebook wall about it. A charming stay-at-home mom from Louisiana posted a grammatically horrid response along the lines of "AS A PROUD MARINE WIFE it ain't right that my husband has to pee and sh*t next to gay guys. Gays shouldn't hit on straight people, it makes them uncomfortable!" She then proceeded to call some of the responders to her ignorant message some, ahem, choice words for gay people.
So I took a deep breath and decided I'd try to use a little polite logic with her. I wrote her the following:
--------------
Good evening. You don't know me. I'm a lawyer and a friend of Donnie's. I saw your posts today and understand you defriended Donnie. I also understand someone sent you a message, which I assume wasn't very nice. I was just hoping to respond in a more calm, rational way and then leave it at that.
To start off, I wanted to point out that my father, my uncle, and both grandfathers proudly fought in Vietnam and World War II respectively. I have deep respect for your husband's service and thank him for all he's doing for our country and our security. And I honor your service by raising children while your husband is deployed, which I'm sure is far more difficult than most people can possibly imagine.
I grew up in a rural town in PA where most people still think about gay people the way you do. I was gay. I got out, went to college and law school and now live in Chicago. I realize our worlds are very different. But I completely understand your mindset and your discomfort with gay people. I see it in old friends and family members. When you're not used to gay people, it's a lot like not being used to black people or any other group of people that seem a bit weird to you. I was 11 when I first shook a black person's hand... and I looked down to see if the color rubbed off onto mine. I look back at that now and laugh (and my black friends think I'm retarded), but I had never met a black person before 11 years-old so it seemed like a natural reaction. So, believe me, I get your frustration.
And for the record, if a gay dude did made an unwanted advance on your husband, I apologize on behalf of the gays. No one should ever try to make others uncomfortable when they know the other person isn't interested. Rest assured, it happens to gay guys all the time too. A few weeks ago, I was at a birthday party at a straight bar when I eventually had to tell a drunk female that I was gay and therefore not interested. "Are you sure you don't just want to go in the alley and make out?" she asked. I suppose I could have been upset at her persistence--as though she was forcing her heterosexuality onto me--but instead I took it as a compliment that she thought I was good looking enough to keep pestering after I had told her I didn't like girls.
Along those lines, I had a really (self-proclaimed) ugly straight professor in college. He told our class of 500 students the one day that the first time anyone ever hit on him was in college and that it was a gay guy. Rather than get upset, he thought to himself, "Gee, at least someone thinks I'm attractive." So if a gay soldier ever does hit on your husband, perhaps he could laugh it off as a compliment. Cause let's face it, one day we'll ALL be old and ugly and no one will think we're attractive except our spouses (and our children when they want to ask us for money).
Gay people in the military live in constant fear that they cannot speak about their personal lives or they risk being discharged. Male soldiers make up fake girlfriends and female soldiers make up fake boyfriends. It's hard to explain to someone who has never had to go through it, but it takes a tremendous emotional toll to hide a huge part of your identity--to be unable to share that amazing letter you just received, or that heartfelt and much needed phone call. And it's also hard to believe that lying to your fellow soldiers--the brave warriors you're supposed to depend on to have your back in battle--is something that somehow fosters unit cohesion and trust. Every single Western ally we have has ended their gay bans in the military. And all have seen no bad effects from doing so.
I hope at the end of the day you do realize that someone being uncomfortable is neither a reason to treat another person differently nor violate the Constitution's Freedom of Association and Equal Protection guarantees. Using your logic, President Eisenhower should not have integrated the Armed Services to allow Blacks to serve alongside Whites because it made some white soldiers uncomfortable. We look back at Eisenhower's decision now and realize it was the right--if unpopular--thing to do.
At the end of the day, gay and lesbian people just want to serve their country, pay their taxes, and suffer through their miserable jobs like everyone else. It may be hard to see that when all you see on the news are angry people with piercings and multi-colored hair shouting with protest signs. But for every angry protester there's a hundred regular people like me and Donnie who just want to live boring, pleasant lives.
If you got to the end of this, thank you. And again, thank your husband and all our brave men and women who fight so that we can have the freedom to have discussions like these safely at home.
God bless you and your family
--------------
Now, you'd think a lovely little e-mail like that would tear at the heart strings. You'd be wrong. I received a short, rude response that indicated she hadn't even read it. And she wrote another of Donnie's friends the following: "U r a FAGGET! U need to sit back and look at ur fucking self! Its b/c of ppl like u yall get yalls asses kicked! Yall need to keep to ur fucking selves and live in ur own village! One thing u DO NOT DO IS PISS ME OFF! My HUSBAND protects ur gay ass! It does become a BIG DEAL with gay ppl do hit on straight ppl! Ive seen it for myself! It honestly does make ppl un comfortable! So don't send me another mesg like u did!"
My first instinct was to call her fat, ugly, and stupid. But I composed myself a moment and managed the following, "Your response was so Christian. Bless you and your tiny mind and inability to use grammar. I forgive you for your multitude of sins, my child. I doubt Jesus will be so generous." Condescending to be sure, but avoiding the fat-ugly-stupid triumvirate. At this point I realized that I'd spent over an hour dealing with a redneck who most likely lacked both the mental capacity to listen as well as the desire to learn. And I felt stupid for even having tried.
But redneck lady aside, I continued my long struggle with one of life's most perplexing questions: After you've offered up a polite, logical argument and have been shot down by malice, what is the appropriate response? And this, dear reader, is where I'd like your help.
Carrot... Then Stick
You see, I learned long ago not to initially fight fire with fire. Ms. Redneck was already fired up and if I had come at her with some rude words right off the bat, she'd have just dismissed me as an angry homo. "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." Rom 12:20. But what happens when even kindness fails? What if you realize you're never going to get through to her? What if you realize that the only satisfying response would be to resort to 5th grade recess tactics and call her fat not only to make her angry and soothe your own soul but also to let her know you're not going to take any more of her crap? Is that acceptable?
History has chosen to remember Martin Luther King, Jr. for his non-violent protesting in this regard. But I've always, always thought that it was a combination of the tactics of Dr. King combined with people like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers who got sh*t done. Let's face it, some white folk were going to be swayed by Dr. King's peaceful ways and wise words, while others needed a big scary Black Panther with a giant afro and a machine gun. Carrot... then stick. And heck, even Dr. King famously said the night before his death, "And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent."
No Stick? How 'Bout an Insult?
When the carrot fails (and you can't use a stick because battery is illegal), is an insult the next best thing? At first, you want to persuade with your logic to get the person on your side. But when you see the person cannot be convinced, I think your motivation changes. If you can't change her mind, shouldn't you at least get some satisfaction out of making her feel bad? Lest we call such tactics petty, let's remember Dr. King. A man can't ride your back unless it's bent. A redneck shouldn't get to call you a "fagget," reject your polite arguments, and then you just stand there and take it. At some point you have to straighten your back and call out the meth-faced creature for what it is. To do otherwise would encourage future hatred on her part.
Or am I being too harsh? The Bible would have instructed us: "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Matt 5:39-41. Can such vile submission be justified in 2010 when people are as callous as ever? The New Testament's "turn the other cheek" was supposed to be the new, hip version of the Old Testament's "an eye for an eye." Because as the writers of the New Testament must have realized, and Gandhi has said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Frankly, I'm not sure either approach would work 100% of the time.
It seems to me, MLK and Jesus are in direct conflict here. And I'm inclined to go with my buddy Dr. King: logic, peace, kindness... but if that fails, straighten up your back and call a b*tch out. Does this further our cause, or am I letting emotions get the better of me?
So I took a deep breath and decided I'd try to use a little polite logic with her. I wrote her the following:
--------------
Good evening. You don't know me. I'm a lawyer and a friend of Donnie's. I saw your posts today and understand you defriended Donnie. I also understand someone sent you a message, which I assume wasn't very nice. I was just hoping to respond in a more calm, rational way and then leave it at that.
To start off, I wanted to point out that my father, my uncle, and both grandfathers proudly fought in Vietnam and World War II respectively. I have deep respect for your husband's service and thank him for all he's doing for our country and our security. And I honor your service by raising children while your husband is deployed, which I'm sure is far more difficult than most people can possibly imagine.
I grew up in a rural town in PA where most people still think about gay people the way you do. I was gay. I got out, went to college and law school and now live in Chicago. I realize our worlds are very different. But I completely understand your mindset and your discomfort with gay people. I see it in old friends and family members. When you're not used to gay people, it's a lot like not being used to black people or any other group of people that seem a bit weird to you. I was 11 when I first shook a black person's hand... and I looked down to see if the color rubbed off onto mine. I look back at that now and laugh (and my black friends think I'm retarded), but I had never met a black person before 11 years-old so it seemed like a natural reaction. So, believe me, I get your frustration.
And for the record, if a gay dude did made an unwanted advance on your husband, I apologize on behalf of the gays. No one should ever try to make others uncomfortable when they know the other person isn't interested. Rest assured, it happens to gay guys all the time too. A few weeks ago, I was at a birthday party at a straight bar when I eventually had to tell a drunk female that I was gay and therefore not interested. "Are you sure you don't just want to go in the alley and make out?" she asked. I suppose I could have been upset at her persistence--as though she was forcing her heterosexuality onto me--but instead I took it as a compliment that she thought I was good looking enough to keep pestering after I had told her I didn't like girls.
Along those lines, I had a really (self-proclaimed) ugly straight professor in college. He told our class of 500 students the one day that the first time anyone ever hit on him was in college and that it was a gay guy. Rather than get upset, he thought to himself, "Gee, at least someone thinks I'm attractive." So if a gay soldier ever does hit on your husband, perhaps he could laugh it off as a compliment. Cause let's face it, one day we'll ALL be old and ugly and no one will think we're attractive except our spouses (and our children when they want to ask us for money).
Gay people in the military live in constant fear that they cannot speak about their personal lives or they risk being discharged. Male soldiers make up fake girlfriends and female soldiers make up fake boyfriends. It's hard to explain to someone who has never had to go through it, but it takes a tremendous emotional toll to hide a huge part of your identity--to be unable to share that amazing letter you just received, or that heartfelt and much needed phone call. And it's also hard to believe that lying to your fellow soldiers--the brave warriors you're supposed to depend on to have your back in battle--is something that somehow fosters unit cohesion and trust. Every single Western ally we have has ended their gay bans in the military. And all have seen no bad effects from doing so.
I hope at the end of the day you do realize that someone being uncomfortable is neither a reason to treat another person differently nor violate the Constitution's Freedom of Association and Equal Protection guarantees. Using your logic, President Eisenhower should not have integrated the Armed Services to allow Blacks to serve alongside Whites because it made some white soldiers uncomfortable. We look back at Eisenhower's decision now and realize it was the right--if unpopular--thing to do.
At the end of the day, gay and lesbian people just want to serve their country, pay their taxes, and suffer through their miserable jobs like everyone else. It may be hard to see that when all you see on the news are angry people with piercings and multi-colored hair shouting with protest signs. But for every angry protester there's a hundred regular people like me and Donnie who just want to live boring, pleasant lives.
If you got to the end of this, thank you. And again, thank your husband and all our brave men and women who fight so that we can have the freedom to have discussions like these safely at home.
God bless you and your family
--------------
Now, you'd think a lovely little e-mail like that would tear at the heart strings. You'd be wrong. I received a short, rude response that indicated she hadn't even read it. And she wrote another of Donnie's friends the following: "U r a FAGGET! U need to sit back and look at ur fucking self! Its b/c of ppl like u yall get yalls asses kicked! Yall need to keep to ur fucking selves and live in ur own village! One thing u DO NOT DO IS PISS ME OFF! My HUSBAND protects ur gay ass! It does become a BIG DEAL with gay ppl do hit on straight ppl! Ive seen it for myself! It honestly does make ppl un comfortable! So don't send me another mesg like u did!"
My first instinct was to call her fat, ugly, and stupid. But I composed myself a moment and managed the following, "Your response was so Christian. Bless you and your tiny mind and inability to use grammar. I forgive you for your multitude of sins, my child. I doubt Jesus will be so generous." Condescending to be sure, but avoiding the fat-ugly-stupid triumvirate. At this point I realized that I'd spent over an hour dealing with a redneck who most likely lacked both the mental capacity to listen as well as the desire to learn. And I felt stupid for even having tried.
But redneck lady aside, I continued my long struggle with one of life's most perplexing questions: After you've offered up a polite, logical argument and have been shot down by malice, what is the appropriate response? And this, dear reader, is where I'd like your help.
Carrot... Then Stick
You see, I learned long ago not to initially fight fire with fire. Ms. Redneck was already fired up and if I had come at her with some rude words right off the bat, she'd have just dismissed me as an angry homo. "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." Rom 12:20. But what happens when even kindness fails? What if you realize you're never going to get through to her? What if you realize that the only satisfying response would be to resort to 5th grade recess tactics and call her fat not only to make her angry and soothe your own soul but also to let her know you're not going to take any more of her crap? Is that acceptable?
History has chosen to remember Martin Luther King, Jr. for his non-violent protesting in this regard. But I've always, always thought that it was a combination of the tactics of Dr. King combined with people like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers who got sh*t done. Let's face it, some white folk were going to be swayed by Dr. King's peaceful ways and wise words, while others needed a big scary Black Panther with a giant afro and a machine gun. Carrot... then stick. And heck, even Dr. King famously said the night before his death, "And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent."
No Stick? How 'Bout an Insult?
When the carrot fails (and you can't use a stick because battery is illegal), is an insult the next best thing? At first, you want to persuade with your logic to get the person on your side. But when you see the person cannot be convinced, I think your motivation changes. If you can't change her mind, shouldn't you at least get some satisfaction out of making her feel bad? Lest we call such tactics petty, let's remember Dr. King. A man can't ride your back unless it's bent. A redneck shouldn't get to call you a "fagget," reject your polite arguments, and then you just stand there and take it. At some point you have to straighten your back and call out the meth-faced creature for what it is. To do otherwise would encourage future hatred on her part.
Or am I being too harsh? The Bible would have instructed us: "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Matt 5:39-41. Can such vile submission be justified in 2010 when people are as callous as ever? The New Testament's "turn the other cheek" was supposed to be the new, hip version of the Old Testament's "an eye for an eye." Because as the writers of the New Testament must have realized, and Gandhi has said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Frankly, I'm not sure either approach would work 100% of the time.
It seems to me, MLK and Jesus are in direct conflict here. And I'm inclined to go with my buddy Dr. King: logic, peace, kindness... but if that fails, straighten up your back and call a b*tch out. Does this further our cause, or am I letting emotions get the better of me?
Morality in the "Me" Generation
Being laid off does strange things to your mind. You can be a little proud of your accomplishments when you work hard and land a good job at a firm. You simmer with anger as you pay your taxes and watch social degenerates popping out child after child whom you know they cannot support. But then the bell tolls for you, too. And you collect some unemployment. And you struggle. And you hear Republicans in Congress say that extended unemployment just makes people lazy (despite the fact that the number of people competing for the same job has reached record numbers). And you hear wacko economist Ben Stein say that most people who got laid off are "unpleasant personalities... who do not know how to do a day's work." Yeah, Ben, I sure asked for all my firm's clients to stop sending us business. That was all me. You pompous ass.
Both parties are good at pointing out the extremes: liberals can righteously point to the stingy heiress who earned her money by virtue of the lottery we call "birth" and never contributes a dime to charity. Conservatives can equally as righteously point to the patient with gold teeth, brand new clothes, a shiny cell phone, and a BMW in the hospital parking lot... who is paying her bill with Medicaid. (In college, I once saw a woman in very nice clothes pay with food stamps and then jump in her Lexus.) But what about that massive gray middle which--especially in a recession--includes plenty of hardworking people who just got screwed over?
Objectivism: Greed Is Good
So with this in mind, I stumbled upon this brief article, which you really must read. Mr. Brook and Mr. Ghates are advocating Ayn Rand's philosophy--objectivism, which essentially holds that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self interest. Objectivism meshes awfully well with popular megachurch preacher Joel Osteen's message that "God wants you to be rich," which, oddly, I couldn't find in my Bible--King James or NIV. But it doesn't take a genius to see why materialist Americans are flocking to someone who is giving them a "religious" way to justify their lifestyle. (As it shouldn't surprise anyone that Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is listed as the second most influential book by business leaders, as it gives them a philosophical way to justify their selfish lifestyle. The most influential book, of course, is the Bible, because, well, you just have to say that before you list a book advocating ruthless capitalism.)
So is this good advice for the 21st Century? Do we need to strip charity and the communal good from our concept of modern morality? Should those unemployed people just starve, cause, after all, they're just lazy sons of beeyatches? I guess we have to step back and ask ourselves: What do we value? Prosperity? New gadgets? Or just kindness, charity, and merely sustaining life (life being defined as: the act of breathing, sleeping and pooping)? On one hand, as the article points out, people like Steve Jobs do create a lot of jobs. But if he failed to donate a penny to charity, would we still consider him a "moral" person?
Jesus once said, "The poor you have with you always." Matt 26:11. Though the point of the verse was for Jesus to show that He was the sh*t and people should honor Him during His brief time on Earth, the passage is also remembered because Jesus, who preached charity and helping the poor, admitted we'd always have the poor around. He's right, of course. There will always be have-nots. But my fear is that as religion is on the decline (over 16% of Americans now claim no religion and numbers are higher in the rest of the Western world), if there aren't good non-religious moral (and by moral I mean: charitable) social structures in place, what happens to the people who aren't as ______ as the authors in the CNN article with their MBAs, Ph.D.s, and money? And here you would fill in the blank with the word: "fortunate" if you were an ultra-liberal or a generous Christian (i.e. "people who aren't as fortunate as the authors") or with the word "industrious" if you were a capitalist/Objectivist (i.e. "people who aren't as industrious as the authors"--and therefore less deserving).
Religion--for all of its faults--at least instructs us that there is something bigger than us, judging us, and watching to see if we treat others with kindness. What happens when God disappears and Ayn Rand's objectivism meshes with the easy-to-love message of preachers like Joel Osteen? "God wants you to be rich! No, really, people! Put down the Book and listen to me. And as you do we're just gonna begin passing that collection basket on the left... Remember: give till it hurts!"
Or if/when Objectivism takes hold, and we blink while the masses die because our morality instructs us that they just must have not worked hard enough or else they too would be awesome and industrious like us, will our morality have been so rampaged so that we will cease to care? Or worse: will we not even know that we were supposed to care?
Capitalism and Charity: What a Wonderful World It Could Be
Perhaps a third option, which the authors do not consider, is (and always has been) the workable answer: combine the two paradigms. Why isn't it possible to encourage people to be industrious like Bill Gates, build empires, create jobs, invent things that improve our lives... and then give your money to charity to help those who weren't as _______ as he? And here, again, you would fill in the blank with the word: "fortunate" if you were a bleeding heart liberal/generous Christian or with the word "industrious" if you were a capitalist/Objectivist. Regardless of how you view the charity, at the end of the day the world's poor would get some freakin' soup.
Maybe a healthy balance of Bible mixed with a little Objectivism has always been the solution for a workable equilibrium in the world--where the rich can thrive and advance society while the poor can merely endeavor to survive. If that's the case, we should be suspicious of both the Jewish carpenter from Galilee who said, "Give up all your riches and follow me" (Luke 18:22) and of the creepy Ayn Rand devotees who essentially say, "Discard your millenia-old definition of 'morality,' let the poor die, and follow me."
Both parties are good at pointing out the extremes: liberals can righteously point to the stingy heiress who earned her money by virtue of the lottery we call "birth" and never contributes a dime to charity. Conservatives can equally as righteously point to the patient with gold teeth, brand new clothes, a shiny cell phone, and a BMW in the hospital parking lot... who is paying her bill with Medicaid. (In college, I once saw a woman in very nice clothes pay with food stamps and then jump in her Lexus.) But what about that massive gray middle which--especially in a recession--includes plenty of hardworking people who just got screwed over?
Objectivism: Greed Is Good
So with this in mind, I stumbled upon this brief article, which you really must read. Mr. Brook and Mr. Ghates are advocating Ayn Rand's philosophy--objectivism, which essentially holds that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self interest. Objectivism meshes awfully well with popular megachurch preacher Joel Osteen's message that "God wants you to be rich," which, oddly, I couldn't find in my Bible--King James or NIV. But it doesn't take a genius to see why materialist Americans are flocking to someone who is giving them a "religious" way to justify their lifestyle. (As it shouldn't surprise anyone that Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is listed as the second most influential book by business leaders, as it gives them a philosophical way to justify their selfish lifestyle. The most influential book, of course, is the Bible, because, well, you just have to say that before you list a book advocating ruthless capitalism.)
So is this good advice for the 21st Century? Do we need to strip charity and the communal good from our concept of modern morality? Should those unemployed people just starve, cause, after all, they're just lazy sons of beeyatches? I guess we have to step back and ask ourselves: What do we value? Prosperity? New gadgets? Or just kindness, charity, and merely sustaining life (life being defined as: the act of breathing, sleeping and pooping)? On one hand, as the article points out, people like Steve Jobs do create a lot of jobs. But if he failed to donate a penny to charity, would we still consider him a "moral" person?
Jesus once said, "The poor you have with you always." Matt 26:11. Though the point of the verse was for Jesus to show that He was the sh*t and people should honor Him during His brief time on Earth, the passage is also remembered because Jesus, who preached charity and helping the poor, admitted we'd always have the poor around. He's right, of course. There will always be have-nots. But my fear is that as religion is on the decline (over 16% of Americans now claim no religion and numbers are higher in the rest of the Western world), if there aren't good non-religious moral (and by moral I mean: charitable) social structures in place, what happens to the people who aren't as ______ as the authors in the CNN article with their MBAs, Ph.D.s, and money? And here you would fill in the blank with the word: "fortunate" if you were an ultra-liberal or a generous Christian (i.e. "people who aren't as fortunate as the authors") or with the word "industrious" if you were a capitalist/Objectivist (i.e. "people who aren't as industrious as the authors"--and therefore less deserving).
Religion--for all of its faults--at least instructs us that there is something bigger than us, judging us, and watching to see if we treat others with kindness. What happens when God disappears and Ayn Rand's objectivism meshes with the easy-to-love message of preachers like Joel Osteen? "God wants you to be rich! No, really, people! Put down the Book and listen to me. And as you do we're just gonna begin passing that collection basket on the left... Remember: give till it hurts!"
Or if/when Objectivism takes hold, and we blink while the masses die because our morality instructs us that they just must have not worked hard enough or else they too would be awesome and industrious like us, will our morality have been so rampaged so that we will cease to care? Or worse: will we not even know that we were supposed to care?
Capitalism and Charity: What a Wonderful World It Could Be
Perhaps a third option, which the authors do not consider, is (and always has been) the workable answer: combine the two paradigms. Why isn't it possible to encourage people to be industrious like Bill Gates, build empires, create jobs, invent things that improve our lives... and then give your money to charity to help those who weren't as _______ as he? And here, again, you would fill in the blank with the word: "fortunate" if you were a bleeding heart liberal/generous Christian or with the word "industrious" if you were a capitalist/Objectivist. Regardless of how you view the charity, at the end of the day the world's poor would get some freakin' soup.
Maybe a healthy balance of Bible mixed with a little Objectivism has always been the solution for a workable equilibrium in the world--where the rich can thrive and advance society while the poor can merely endeavor to survive. If that's the case, we should be suspicious of both the Jewish carpenter from Galilee who said, "Give up all your riches and follow me" (Luke 18:22) and of the creepy Ayn Rand devotees who essentially say, "Discard your millenia-old definition of 'morality,' let the poor die, and follow me."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)