To the Editor:
In his column ["Life's Most Important Question," The Dartmouth, Feb. 27] Billy Wynne asks how "those in the 'selfish' school of thought" answer the question: What am I doing for other people? Before I satisfy his curiosity, I should mention the letter of mine Wynne responded to dealt with the issue of conservatism and liberalism, not selfishness and selflessness, and the attempt to portray the two issues as identical was largely what I criticized. On to Wynne's comments. To start, I do not believe being selfish is better than not being so. What I do believe is that being selfish is as valid a way to live your life as any other.
Wynne's arguments are a presentation of "liberal guilt." This is the notion that because you are rich or successful you owe something to the downtrodden. He decries "people who hoard money ... with complete neglect of the billions of suffering, less fortunate people in the world." We should feel concern for these billions because they are human and suffering. We have advantages over people who often "work twice as hard" as selfish people like myself. Wynne asks how I "pass off the issue" of people's suffering.
My answer is that these people are not suffering from any action of mine, but at the whim of chance or the will of God. They deserve and have my pity. But they do not deserve my life or money. I owe that to myself and the family and friends who have made me what I am. Those billions will have nothing to do with my success, and their suffering does not place an obligation on me to share that success. I have nothing but respect for those who help others because it makes them happy, but nothing but pity for those who do it because they feel obligated to.
"Life's Most Important Question" is wonderful for people like Wynne. However, for those of us who don't feel the vagaries of life are our responsibility, its value ranges from minimal to nonexistent. Both views are equally valid, and to those who think one better than the other, you are sadly mistaken.
