.jpg)
By Susan C. Price
Ok, readers, this is probably it for me on the topic of ethics. I really did say all my tiny mind thinks about the topic the first time through, plus my comment in reply to loneliestliberal’s summarizing his dad’s World War II gasoline-rationing story, how his grandfather Vern refused a larger ration on the supposed grounds that his work was vital to the war effort, saying that “his needs were no more important than those of anyone else.” I replied that
I still think it’s important, and I know you do also, or you wouldn’t remember it. I think we all get greedy from time to time. I have seen folks at pricey celebrity events, scrambling for a freebie video (it was a few years ago, before DVDs), nay, demanding two. Effective to talk about this stuff...one can hope. Whose needs are more important?And then there were my brother Jon’s comments. Jon is simply more erudite…and more long-winded/nuanced (take your pick) than I. I suppose that between the two of our styles, we cover the readership? Part of Jon’s comment was:
The neat division into negative ethics and positive ethics (actively doing good) break down pretty radically when the counterexamples from positive ethics are actually those of people doing wrong—the neighbors allegedly angling for an apparently undeserved parking space, or the investment bankers who got more than their fair share, presumably through insider information or disastrous mortgage loan collateralized into indecipherable debt instruments.“Actively doing good is not so simple.” Which leads neatly to my real pre-occupation these days...Now that I have given up the half-time work-from-home job I have had for some years (non-profit Fiscal Person, i.e., Bookkeeper Plus)…now what?
Actively doing good would seem to be those such as people who volunteer for Habitat for Humanity and use their free time to erect homes for those who otherwise would be unable to afford a suitable dwelling, or those who voluntarily give blood all the time without compensation to help those who may need it, or those who donate sizable portions of their wealth, such as Warren Buffett, to charities they won’t control and that won’t be named after them. Actively doing good seems to include a generosity of spirit that at least on the surface is non-egotistical, unselfish, and well-intended. But as we know or have heard, the “road to hell is paved with good intentions.” So again, ethics is not so simple.
Shall I have an occupation, or simply hang around? Am I “allowed” to do nothing, produce nothing, help no one? Is it cosmically unfair (unethical—there, I found it!) of me to suck air, Social Security, a California State Employee pension, and Medicare...and not contribute to the general welfare?
And if you can answer that one…then I have to figure out...will doing nothing of value (how the h double hockey sticks do we figure value out?)…will doing nothing of value make me lose my mind...sooner?
And, if someone in my extended family is in financial straits (a life change not of their making), is it not just unethical but downright immoral for me to not send them money (they haven't asked) and instead spend it...on a trip to NYC for my 65th birthday? Um, expensive hotels, theatre, dining, and shopping....
Answers? Anyone?
Or are ya’all gonna be like the Universe? When I asked the U for info re: how long I will live, or how long I will live healthily...so I could intelligently plan my finances, the U laughed...very loudly...and said, “Really? Did you think I would tell you that?” More laughter.
So we are all flying blind into however many tomorrows we will recognize...which leads me to think that somehow...you should always be as good and kind and giving as you can stand...because that could be
_______________
Copyright © 2013 by Susan C. Price
| Please comment |
I fear you, like all of us, have placed to much value on yourself. The sun will rise, the moon will set, and the oceans will move across the planet; we are here for but a moment. Once you reach the top of the mountain and realize the way down is shorter than you thought it would be; it is time to find new values. The values of the young no longer apply to you. This is a lesson a lot of people are about to learn. In your youth, you could afford to vote pro-life, or pro-choice; now you need to vote: Medicare and Social Security. That is how your values change---in the end we must look out for our best interest; because we are the only ones who know how short the walk down the other side of the hill really is. Enjoy the stroll , take in
ReplyDeleteas much as you can, the world will get (along or not) without your help. We all know were this trip ends; pick the road to the bottom, for you.
That is just my two-colons. Good luck with the rest of your life---work is over rated.
Pura Vida, from Costa Rica
Ed, Of course you're right that our actions make an infinitesimal difference in the long run. But I remember Loren Eiseley's star-thrower. It makes a big difference to the stranded starfish whether we throw it back into the water or not.
DeleteI can't agree that citizens should be concerned only with voting issues that affect them personally. At any rate, I've always considered responsible citizenship and voting to call on me to be mindful of the common good when I am deciding how to vote. It might even be that the decline of "common-good thinking" is a significant factor in the divisiveness the United States is now experiencing.
"I've always considered responsible citizenship and voting to call on me to be mindful of the common good when I am deciding how to vote."
ReplyDeleteThat sounds good and paints a picture of the right thing to do---however, most young people believe there will be no Social Security for them and they will live forever and they vote that way. And well they should, it will not be long before we will all be gone and it will be their world soon enough. We had our time, in which to run the ship aground or sail into clear blue waters---they too will make that choice. What I'm saying is the people running the ship; they only need our vote and if we vote wrong---we may not have the time left to correct the mistake. The common-good is only good if it does not hurt us(old farts).
ARRESTING idea, that the common good can't be all that good if it hurts ME....As Jon said, "Actively doing good is not so simple."
DeleteI might add to Jon if I may: who decides if you have done good?
ReplyDeleteIf I saved a snake from drowning and it in turn bites someone. The good deed made me feel wonderful for the moment, but in the long run it did harm.
Me first is not always a bad thing and in fact you have the same odds of doing common-good as voting any other way. At least with a me first vote you do know there will one person happy with the vote. I look at it this way, if our generation did not change the world for the better by now---we never will---it's time to find some peace. Those wars belong to someone else now.
Growing up at the back edge of the "baby boomers" I have always viewed those at the leading edge as the main cause of most that has gone wrong in the world in general, and America in particular, in my lifetime. This piece and the back and forth that follows it shines an interesting first-hand light on the inner, individual thinking of what is arguably the most powerful voting and financial bloc in the history of humanity. A bloc we members of "the screwed generation" think of as the "most selfish generation" follow-up to "the greatest generation."
ReplyDelete"Our actions make an infinitesimal difference in the long run." Really? Maybe, or maybe not, in the arena of evolution and natural selection, but certainly not in matters of business and politics.
Kenya had a highly-questionable election and the people took their disagreements to the streets. 1,100 were killed as the people sorted it out and got things back on track. America had a highly-questionable election and the people didn't take it to the streets as a bunch of old men appointed by political cronies and insulated from reality sorted it out. As a result the U.S. wound up invading two foreign countries, millions were killed, and our country lost decades of hard-earned world standing. And the U.S. had a contrived financial collapse that enables those safely ensconced in their plush retirements to buy at ever cheaper prices from those who will never be able to retire - because they are paying off the debts run up by the recently retired.
No, I am not advocating armed insurrection to right political wrongs, and I don't want any of us to live in a post-apocalyptic "Road Warrior" sort of nightmare lifestyle, but as the rest of us scrape to put back together the mess the older boomers created, we would like to think they appreciated the life and world they inherited, and are at least somewhat aware of the mess they passed along to the rest of us. Through nothing but sheer luck you folks were born into the greatest civilization in the history of humanity, and at the height of its power - be glad, be very glad, and at least pretend you appreciate it so it will take some of the sting out of it for the rest of us.
Motomynd, I took Konotahe to be talking about individual people's actions. So, when I commented that "Of course you're right that our actions make an infinitesimal difference in the long run," I was referring to his or my individual actions, not to collective actions such as you cite in Kenya.
ReplyDeletePlease clarify a point for me, if you would. You say that you "have always viewed those at the leading edge as the main cause of most that has gone wrong in the world in general, and America in particular, in my lifetime." Your wording seems to suggest that you view each and every individual in that narrow generational category as contributing causally to things going wrong. Do you?
I seek clarification in order to understand whether you are blaming the author of the piece personally, or Konotahe personally, or me personally for screwing you and other members of your own generation.
For my own part, if I am culpable for that, I'd like to explore what I might do to make amends before I die and it becomes too late to remove this blot from my record. Thank you.
While we in the "screwed generation" view the older boomers collectively as the "most selfish generation" and blame them in general for squandering the nearly idyllic situation they inherited, we do recognize that there are exceptions to the older boomer mindset and dubious track record. Consumer activist Ralph Nader, former president Jimmy Carter, "Pentagon Papers" whistle blower Daniel Ellsberg, Bell Laboratories (for its role in the development of the first commercial solar panel) come to mind as examples of boomers who have done their best to build on the privileged starting point their generation was given.
ReplyDeleteThere is of course no way to know all the efforts made by all the boomers - such as yourself, your contributing editors, and your readers. So we have no choice but to look at the generation's combined accomplishments - or lack thereof. Sadly, when one looks at the situation the boomers started their professional lives with, versus what they pass along as they reach retirement age, one has to wonder what they were thinking as they collectively made decisions that shaped the future. Again, there are exceptions, but most of those decisions seemed to be based on "me first" and have done damage that will take generations to repair.
Morris, hopefully you are not one of those with a blot to be removed from your record. Hopefully you have made yourself an informed citizen and voted knowledgeably, have invested for the benefit of society and the planet and not just to make a top-dollar return, and raised your children to understand that life and the world are to be given to, not just taken from. As for the boomers who very possibly have never taken an honest look in the figurative mirror in their entire lives, there is little hope of getting them to do so now. The rest of us will therefore leave them to their fate and devote our time and effort to continuing to clean up their mess.
Motomynd, It sounds from what you're saying, or maybe how you're saying it, that the exceptions among the "leading edge baby boomers" who managed not to squander their inheritance are rather small in number, so I'm not confident that I can find enough examples of building on my privileged starting point to qualify me for that select segment whom you are prepared to commend for not being pitiful slackers and squanderers.
ReplyDeleteIt also appears from what you say, or how you say it, that the exceptions among the "trailing edge baby boomers" who somehow failed to devote themselves and their time to cleaning up their inherited mess and saving the world are just as small in number, or smaller, and you are definitely not among them. Of course, I never suspected that you were. You are even gracious enough to be a blogging colleague with the likes of me!
All that being so, would you consider doing a monthly ethics column? As Susan admits in her post, she doesn't think she herself has anything more to say on the subject, which is the reason we've changed the name of her column.
If you were to do a regular ethics column, I could envision it having the feel of an Old Testament Jeremiah or other prophet, you speak with such authority. Please consider this. It might be just what Moristotle & Co. needs to increase its readership by two or three orders of magnitude. Or more.