I've always had a question I wanted to ask in a public forum, but until now didn't see an appropriate venue for doing so. After reading Alexander Wilson's letter to the editor (The Dartmouth, Feb. 24), I knew I'd gotten my chance. I understand a lot of what he says and perfectly agree that if he wants to make millions as an investment banker then he should be absolutely free to do so. But I am troubled by how he addresses the alleged problems with conservatism that Seth Abramson apparently brought up. I do not wish to attack Wilson or conservatives, but rather I'll try to dispel the paradigm I find implicit in his words.
Wilson quotes Abramson as saying that conservatism promotes "being rich, selfish and lazy [as] perfectly acceptable." He then extinguishes these challenges by saying "First off, for what possible reason would being rich be less acceptable than being poor? As for selfish, that may well be true. But that's not a terrible thing either."
I guess if that statement doesn't trouble you at all, then we are not going to find a lot of common ground for discussion, but I'll proceed. It seems to me a reason that being rich might be less acceptable than being poor is because people who hoard money for themselves, greedily and selfishly, are doing so with complete neglect of the billions of suffering, less fortunate people in the world (I know, boo-hoo, but work with me for a second). I'm not trying to give the "there are starving children in Africa" schpiel to keep you from throwing out extra food, but I think throwing out extra food or buying yourself a nice stereo is different then having the mindset and world view that all that matters is the acquisition of wealth for your self.
As humans, we are gifted with logical, rational minds that can conceive of our own existence and question and map our own course. An accompanying part of being human, and this is what I think Abramson was getting at when he called liberalism the "logical outgrowth of human nature," is a mutual understanding among all mankind of the inherent suffering and happiness that accompanies our life experience. The emotions we all share are what make us human, and they inextricably bind us to one another. Simply because I know that an individual in India that I have never met is human, I feel a bond with him, a "primal sympathy" which compels me to be concerned for his welfare. I think to deny that bond would be to deny my humanity, as well as his.
Let me say that I don't think we should all be Mother Theresa or even Princess Di. All I think we should be and logically have to be is conscious of other people in our world and have a remote desire that their condition be a bearable one, especially if our own condition is so relatively luxurious and carefree. Investment banking is fine; capitalism works. We should all do what we are interested in, and if making money is what one wants to do with his life, then I guess that's what he should do. I just feel like we all agreed somewhere in our youth that the goal of life should not be to "have the most toys." There seems to be something more to work for than money and yachts and trips to Acapulco. Those are fun, but if you really think about it, they are mere abstractions of reality. They aren't real. Emotions are real; human understanding is real; hate is real just as love is real. These are the things we should embrace, not Rolex watches. And if we are to embrace them, the selfishness Wilson seems to advocate becomes an inherently foolish and meaningless notion.
I am very hesitant to espouse these views because: a) they seem completely foreign to the collective Dartmouth mode of thinking, and b) I think tolerance is a fundamental virtue and telling someone they're wrong for living life in the manner they choose is dangerously judgmental and self-righteous. But the first problem is also the reason I'm writing this, and it is the reason I have wanted to write something similar to this for quite some time. The latter point is troublesome but seems a natural facet of a debate about anything important.
I can hear the defense which would say, "yeah, but I've worked for my money; I've earned the right to be as rich as I am, and that's the way the world works: hard work = prosperity = I'm justified in having 10 Mercedes without a guilty conscience." Unfortunately, this is not the way the world works, and it is closed-minded to think so. There are people working twice as hard as advocates of such a position will ever work to just get their meals on the table. To say, "oh well, stinks for them," is not a satisfactory way to pass off the issue, at least for me. So therein lies my challenge for Wilson or anyone who may be upset by my liberal diatribe in this article. Please share with me how you "pass off that issue;" the issue of other people's suffering. In other words, how do you justify complete and infinite selfishness? Not as opposed to complete altruism, but as opposed to a mild concern for other people. How do you attribute meaning to your life when you ground it amid the confines of materialism, ignoring any of the "eternal verities" that make us human? It is not enough for me if you say, "I love my mom; that's an emotion so your argument is shot." I'm not saying you can't feel any emotion; I'm saying you must be ignoring the worth of these emotions to cling to "selfishness" as a guiding principle.
Think how unfathomable it would be to sit by a pool when you're 75 and facing your last days and say to yourself, "boy, I'm sure glad I didn't waste any time or effort helping out other people. Otherwise I wouldn't have made lots of money and bought all of that stuff." It seems that's what the selfish materialist wants to say someday, and I have hopes for him like I do for the starving children in Africa.
But ultimately it's not a matter of what you can say to yourself one day, the matter is that there really are suffering people, objectively, physically suffering, and the dominant mindsets like what I've challanged in this column only perpetuate that tragic aspect of the human condition. Martin Luther King said "Life's most urgent question is: What am I doing for other people?" I'm curious to hear how those in the "selfish" school of thought answer this question or deny its urgency.
