Marta, to your question: “What does it say about you when you're not particularly willing to go beyond that?”, I'll respond: It says you don’t see the point presently. That’s all.
Reading Josh’s comments and talking to Marta about this “exercise” you all wanted to experience got me thinking. Like Josh, I don’t think that giving up stuff (like my beloved old out-of-order gold Omega watch) would be so mind-bending for me: out of sight, out of mind/heart. But, how about giving up experiences, moments… cherished ones…? My blood pressure started to rise at the thoughts…
---------
On a related topic, but a bit off as well: relationship to money/profit. I don’t experience it as enslaving. And I’d like to bring up this topic of the morality of money – an inquiry written by our friends’ son, Paul, a rancher in Arizona. http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/notes/paul-schwennesen/the-morality-of-profit-an-inquiry/393082701962
I wholeheartedly agree with him. What do you all think?
So Alex, I've just read Paul's article. He says a lot of things I agree with. I don't think any of us would be any happier for living in a non-profit world. I do agree that the profit motive is an important one, and I do agree that it must strike a balance with respect for society's benefit. My only question is where does one choose to strike that balance? Is it OK for AIG to have granted bonuses to its execs even as the company was being investigated for poor business practices?
ReplyDeletePaul mentions Wall Street and the disdain with which we tend to view its gross profits, but never attacks this question head on. I guess I appreciate his high-minded take on profit and how it's generally good, but down in the gutter, when push comes to shove, I don't agree with him that one man's profit is not necessarily another man's loss. And I'm not talking about the Bernie Madoffs of the world, who are so motivated by profit that they become outright thieves. I'm talking about the AIGs of the world that award bonuses, even as the market they traded so heavily on falls apart around them. And no doubt some people bought the argument that the bonuses in question were just a "drop in the bucket" in the grand scheme of things. But those are some pretty big drops from the perspective of someone who has lost a job because of the ripple effects of AIG's profit-motivated insurance strategy (basically to ensure a bunch of worthless crap, as far as I can tell). So what would Paul say about that? When, in a Capitalist society gone wild, do we start to look at profits and acknowledge that the bad taste in our mouths is there for a good reason?
Paul writes:
"Morality is mankind’s unique evolutionary tactic for guaranteeing the greatest benefit to its members."
This is a true, if incomplete statement, because it presumes that there is some disinterested, biological reason that compels us to benefit our fellow members of society. And while his examples from the animal kingdom of self-sacrifice for the benefit of the whole society might be partially true in some species, it is not true across species. To stretch the analogy and challenge Paul, I would ask if it might be true, therefore, if the rich in this country might be morally compelled to look after the rich, while largely ignoring the poor. That is, after all, a sort of morality, too. Of course there are wealthy philanthropists out there, and for them, we are grateful. Without their profit motive, many an organization that depends on their beneficence would be lost. But come on, you cannot convince me that their philanthropy stems from some "evolutionary tactic" that we applies in every wealthy gene-pool. I mean, look around you. Is that what you see? Obama may frown at AIG bonuses, but even in the worst of times, those bonuses will get paid. How's that for morality?
Morality does not come from some logical Darwinian scheme of progress. That would only be true if it ALWAYS resulted in a society improving, in spite of itself. Rather, morality often demands altruistic actions that offer only spiritual benefit. For those who try to separate morality from religion, I say good luck.
Meanwhile, I'm grateful to live in the land of the almighty dollar, but I don't presume that only absolute power corrupts absolutely. Paul recognizes where profit turns into greed, but he doesn't give that greed enough credit for its ability to completely ruin a society. We have to be careful.
By the way, how is his beef?