“No man is an
island, entire of itself.”
-
John
Donne (1572-1631) [1]
When I answered Dr. Mitchell-Buck’s
question that we should deemphasize or get rid of individualism, I realized
that my answer may be very incomplete. Although I still stand by this answer, I
must first explain what exactly I meant by that term. Moral individualism, the
mentality of “me, myself, and nobody else” is causing our society to fall apart
at its most basic level.
Within ethics, both secular and
religious, we find some variation of the Golden Rule. The most famous variation
in the West states that we should “do to others whatever you would have them do
to you” (Matthew 7:12). A similar command tells us to “love…your neighbor as
yourself” (Luke 10:27). You may see other religious Golden Rules in the chart
below.
 |
| Globalfaithinaction.com; click here to enlarge |
I’m sure we can all agree (regardless of
religious beliefs) that putting others above ourselves is a heroic virtue. Whether
we help the poor and homeless, the sick and dependent, the unwanted and
depressed, or even each other, we succeed in acting on the Golden Rule. If we
ignore this, however, we end up being selfish and extremely individualistic,
where we think of ourselves as better than other humans.
Ideally, everyone would assist each other,
placing those who are in worse conditions than ourselves as the top priority. However,
as we are still imperfect humans, there will be those who resist, perhaps
strongly, the idea of assisting others. Therefore, it would be morally wrong to
force someone to do something against their will, even if it is as simple as
visiting those who are lonely. This utopian world, therefore, must tell them
that they should not put any impediments or obstacles in the way of those who
legitimately want to help. They must step aside and let others do the work, or
they will cause more harm than good.
.jpg) |
| ifood.tv |
There have been, and still are, examples
of this ideal, to a greater or lesser degree. The modern examples, homeless
shelters and soup kitchens for the poor, are the epitome of the Golden Rule. Those
who work here voluntarily give hours of their day to help, and get little or no
monetary reward. They give much, and receive nothing in return.
We must expand this mindset of the
homeless shelter and charitable actions to the world; we realize then that
there are greater things in this world than ourselves, and once we get rid of
this “me, myself, and I” mindset, we can truly start making the world a better
place. If we are self-centered and selfish in the world, how can we possibly
think we are making the world the best it can be?
[1] “No Man is an
Island by John Donne,” Poem Hunter, accessed January 24, 2013, <http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/no-man-is-an-island/>.
The real question comes in, though: If one wasn't required to volunteer, would all of the burden go onto the ones who do? I know that as a highschooler we were expected to do a number of volunteer hours in order to graduate. Some gratefully did them, or did more than them. However, others did not, and scraped by with the minimum. If they were told they didn't HAVE to be helpful, I don't think they would. Which would've sucked. Also, I was required to do volunteer work (which, at the tender age of 16, I vocally complained about), and I realized I liked it so I stuck with it.
ReplyDeleteYou can see this sort of thing in taxes, where people who donate to charities get amounts of of their taxes, that sort of thing. It helps prevent those who are insanely wealthy from never contributing to society.
How would you take away from the "ME ME ME" mindset of the West, specifically? Apart from a straight-up mind control or the fear of eternal damnation as found in religious literature, what would drive those who are not innately good to do good?
We have similar ideas, but my problem isn't so much "I" as "Us"
ReplyDeleteThe problem with your idea is that its a bit of a weak inclination. Forcing people is wrong, we believe that in some ways, but not in all. All laws force: just look at road law for one. Law forces us to move in one direction, and at a certain speed. We have to stop periodically, yield to others, turn only under certain circumstances. What would be so wrong with saying All citizens must volunteer an hour of time a month? Why does that bother us so much when we are so comfortable with being controlled in so many other ways?
Hi MJ and Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI feel like both of your questions can be summarized as "why don't we make it obligatory instead of voluntary?"
To achieve the goals of social awareness through coercion, whether legislative or religious, is not within my vision of a utopia.
I freely admit I do not know how to change people's behavior to come to this conclusion, but I firmly believe that free will is an essential part to this ideal.