"I NEED"
I presuppose we are all hypocrites, maybe with me in the lead since I attempt to write profusely, if not eloquently, about ethical issues. In practice a lot of ethics is situational. Circumstances often set the likelihood of ethical actions. "Fair is Fair", the Golden Rule, "live and let live" are all basic and universal moral principles----but principles which operate under widely differing situations. With different genetic wiring and different operational environments, people employing these principles have widely dissimilar obstacles for implementation. "Judge not, that you be not judged" has substantial merit to it.
This is not to say the principles have limited validity. They don't, but indubitably it is easier for some people to be ethical, given their circumstances, than it is for others to be ethical given their circumstances. Leadership plays a big role. Good parents lead by example. If parents are ethical in limited circumstances kids often follow suit. Political leaders influence massive numbers of people regarding ethical issues. Hitler facilitated unethical behavior, Churchill instilled ethical behavior. Lincoln instilled ethical behavior as a moral imperative, Jefferson Davis perverted it as a function of self serving utilitarianism. Bush perverted ethics,, Obama brings out the better angels of human nature. All humans, with only psychopathic exceptions, understand right from wrong. We all have a genetically wired ethics derived from rational thought. The question invariably is one of finding the strength to do the right thing.
We often look at God's evolutionary process as a purely physical evolution. But there is also a moral progression in the evolutionary ladder. Until more modern times physical fitness controlled the survival of the fittest. But with the human species has come a moral component. We are not the most physically fit species on the planet. But we are the smartest, most creative, and strangely the most dangerous. Just how dangerous our species is to other species and to the earth's environment is becoming more clear in a very rapid fashion----like in my lifetime. When I was young the world was not overpopulated by humans, natural resources seemed endless, our atmosphere was not polluted, water was abundant to be used at will, the poorest could find land enough off which to live, and conflict was restricted to one uniformed army against another uniformed army. In that sense those were the good old days. But of course, in another sense, back then so many of the gadgets which make our lives so much easier and more entertaining, did not exist. It is a complicated conundrum.
Recently a good friend with many admirable personal traits, responded to the need for universal health care by stating: "I'm sorry I don't have the capacity to pay considerably more for anything.". This is no isolated position. Most Americans respond the same way. HOWEVER, none of the universal codes of ethics, all quite similar, admit to any ethics determined by convenience. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" does not have tacked on to it "whenever it is convenient, painless, or requires no sacrifice."
We have---of course not me---become a nation of WANTS without regard to ethical priorities or long term consequences. For example, when 80% of Americans supported attacking Iraq they really attached no intention to sacrifice, nor made any real effort to vision the consequences or the ethics involved. It just seemed like a good idea to topple a dictator of some sovereign nation thousands of miles away, bring 'democracy' to the people of Iraq, and, in the absence of any Cold War with any major world power to give us pause, to go into Iraq because the most powerful nation in the world can do so.
None of these advocates of invading Iraq ever claimed "I'm sorry I don't have the capacity to pay considerably more for anything." And Bush was smart enough, if I can use the word smart loosely,to understand that the people would support the war only if there was no sacrifice demanded from the people. In fact, he implemented a series of tax cuts, mostly to the wealthy supporters of his political base. The cost of the Iraq War is into the billions (I will not bother to look it up since such big numbers have no real impact on us anymore). Let us just say that the cost of the Iraq War has exceeded by far the cost of providing adequate health care to all citizens. I suppose, one could say the troops paid a heavy sacrifice. But cleverly, the government cleared the way for endless wars by removing the kind of internal turmoil the Vietnam War created. Wars now are by volunteers. This may shock some, but there are a lot of young people, for various reasons, who prefer the excitement, challenge, salary, and danger of war compared to the mundane, often poorly salaried or unemployed civilian life existing for so many at this point in our history. Of course this reasoning is deceptive too. A good percentage of volunteers find that modern warfare on the front line is a bit much to stomach. With no recognizable enemy, it is a lot of senseless human tragedy caused by smart bombs, sniper fire, roadside bombs, suicide bombers, domestic gang atrocities, displaced families, massive unemployment, and human misery piled high everywhere you look. A lot of primitive raw savagery right in your face. As a consequence, more of these volunteer soldiers have committed suicide, or tried to, then have been killed by enemy combatants. Our country has the means, with few deaths by any Americans, to demolish the infrastructure of countries, create millions of refugees, and with the expense of huge fortified 'green zones' install some kind of limited standoff---all on borrowed money. Bush's unilateral war was kind of a free ride for the current generation, camouflaged as a crusade of 'good' vs 'evil'. Most of the world saw it differently.
Pretty much the same majority who supported this war also support the War on Drugs. There is always catchy phrases to support unethical dumb ass ventures. Like anyone who opposes the War on Drugs, as constituted, must be for recreational drug abuse. The cost of this War, in terms of dollars and wasted lives of young people is also way up in the billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of prisoners. We are so good at this police action that the percentage of our citizens now in jail is higher than every other country. Some prefer calling it 'tough love' and others see it more like cleansing the streets of racial or young victims of urban, rural, and suburban Drug War zones. Without marijuana sales to sustain it, drug dealing in this country would be a minor business. And precious few say to the politicians, "I'm sorry I don't have the capacity to pay considerably more for anything." so the War on Drugs goes on and the use of marijuana in the U.S. about on par with those countries who don't have such a War on Drugs.
When it comes to adequate health care for all our citizens and spending the same amount of money to educate all of our children, the golden rule becomes inapplicable because "I'm sorry I don't have the capacity to pay considerably more for anything."
I am hardly prepared to argue exactly how the best health care program should be set up. But those who argue private corporations should operate health care in a free, unregulated market seem a bit irrational to me. Wasn't it a free, unregulated (police themselves) financial and real estate market which produced global recession? And if govt regulation of health care is so bad, why is it that the rest of the industrialized countries, who all have universal health care in one form or another, never vote it out? Can the people who have universal health care really be so stupid about it's value and the people who don't have it be so right about it's ineffectiveness? We have the most expensive health care system in the world with the least percentage of people protected compared to other industrialized countries.
The time where Americans can just focus on real or imagined 'I need" is either over or our lifestyle and our position in the world cannot be sustained. We needed gas guzzling SUV's until we finally destroyed our own car industry. We needed to punish marijuana smokers even though the financial and social cost of this punishment to our society has far exceeded the same costs which we incurred with the prohibition of alcohol.
Our 'needs' in the past were limited by our choices. Now, hell, there is some expensive thing for about every whim and convenience. And all of these needs are claimed so essential to our well being and happiness that "I'm sorry I don't have the capacity to pay considerably more for anything" (that might be covered by the Golden Rule). "I got's mine" is the new family values motto.
None of the above reflects my own escape from 'I need". But our fixation on what "I need" is so entrenched now that beginning with irresponsible reproduction and all that ensues from it, we are increasingly becoming under destructive attack by our own self centered 'needs'. I am cognizant that sitting where I sit presently, having just about everything "I need", seems to be an odd position from which to question others on what 'they need'. There is no way for me to escape this obvious nuance.
The ethical goal, it seems to me, should always be to maximize the ability of more and more to be able to have what 'they need' as I would want to have what "I need". Children 'need' just about everything they spy which interests them. But adults need guard against regressing to children all over again---minus, of course, a parent to say "NO". Adults don't have parents, we have matured consciences. We have the Golden Rule. That is our parent and the parent of every religious sect. It may not be that recognizable anymore, but buried in the origins of most every major religion is the Golden Rule. It is noteworthy that when one thinks of the religious right of any religion, the Golden Rule is not what comes to mind. And, 'live and let live' becomes, in the eyes of the religious right, the DEVIL.
In these times, in our own country, the Golden Rule cannot be our mantra until we get our priorities straight. There is no excuse for us to spend more money on military adventures and equipment than all the other major world countries combined. There is no ethical rational for our country being the only one with so many military bases all over the globe. Why do we need to be an empire, to use military bases to prop up often unpopular governments in foreign lands? Why shouldn't recreational drug abuse be the medical problem which it is instead of the criminal war it has been bred to be? Why are we so enthusiastic about buying goods made by slave labor? Is it that impossible to pay a fair dollar for the labor involved to provide what 'we need'? Is it relevant where exactly the slave labor force is located?
Let's be honest. What percent of the material goods we own we never use for years? And yet these are things "we need"? If we need them why are we not using them? With our priorities rearranged we can afford to ensure adequate health care for all, we can afford to spend an equal and adequate amount of money to educate every child, we could afford to pay honest prices for the labor involved to provide what 'we need', we could provide more humanitarian aid to the poorest across the globe, we could accept the need and means to control human reproduction, we could become more energy efficient, we could better protect the environment----and we can do all this with but modest self control over all our perceived 'needs'.
Well, why can't we have whatever we 'need'? Simply put, we can't because if we do, others in need will not be able to have their needs met. And let us bury the nonsense that "let them do like I did, get what they want the "old fashioned way---earn it". None of us earned our parents, earned what country we were born in, which town we were raised in, which schools we went to, which others were available to become our friends, earned our genetic make-up, earned the environment in which we were raised, earned our looks, our inherited talents, our personality, etc. Frankly, there is not a lot of "I" in God's evolutionary process. Humans always invent Gods to make it seem otherwise, but history has shown that God's laws of evolution apply to all living life forms. I would like for God to make me an exception, but a little birdie tells me He won't. The sanctity of life has nothing to do with our individual lives. The Golden Rule does. The sanctity of life is found in the evolutionary continuum of life. Life doesn't begin at conception, life began eons ago and continues today, ever changing, ever evolving, and it is this big picture which gives sanctity to life. If God Himself believed as the religious right would have everyone believe, none of us would die. God is not hovering over all of us, reserving for himself the decision when and how to murder us. Why do we have to get so self eccentrically silly?
'I need" to stop here. But let me close with the following observation. There are 100 million kids who will die in the next few years from preventable diseases and conditions. The average cost to prevent their death is $250. "I'm sorry I don't have the capacity to pay considerably more for anything." We all have made this comment, in one form or another, many times. But really? Let me see, a thousand dollars would save 4 kids. A more modest car with good fuel efficiency would save what? A good $10,000 dollars? That is the life of 40 kids saved. What an obvious ethical course of action.
How many kids have I saved? None. I will in my Will but maybe that is a cop out. You know, let the money accumulate and then I can save more kids. Easy enough since I don't have kids. But most of you do. See, doing the right thing is heavily rooted in circumstances. You want your kids to have the money. Ethics is really tough. My heroes in this regard are Andrew Carnegie and Warren Buffet, Christ, Buddha, etc. Carnegie said it was a disgrace to die and not return your accumulated wealth back into the society from which it was derived. Christ said that in so far as we give assistance to the least amongst us, we can get to heaven. He also said it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. Of course rich means those richer than I or you. If there is a Heaven, it must be a cozy small group. I think maybe instead of television commercials, videos of individual kids dying with a phone number to save them, of the 100 million who will die in the next few years, should be telecast instead of commercials. I think if we could see them dying, we might not be so quick to say: "I'm sorry I don't have the capacity to pay considerably more for anything." Actually, most people would be outraged at being forced to confront this. Sometimes outrage is a good thing. Perhaps for every $250 we spend on something we 'need', but maybe not really 'need' we ought to also spend $250 to save a kids life. My heavens, Bill Gates, our corporate CEO's, Professional Sport Team owners, major stars in professional sports, major entertainers---on this basis could save every one of the million dying kids and with our lesser help could give every person in our country quality health care and every child a quality education. Interesting.
