Hi Bill,
Thanks for calling me out on the subtle distinction in my argument that apparently I did not make very well. I was not critiquing people who live ostentatiously. I critiqued those who live ostentatious AND sprout how it is good for other people: hypocrites. I argued that we should not try to fool ourselves or others when it comes to why we live the way we do. I was annoyed with people who do something because they enjoy it, then try to justify that action by saying how it is good for those around them or society in general. I believe being honest with ourselves: aware of why we do what we do is a first step towards inflicting less harm in the world through insisted ignorance.
Addressing your points:
I agree an equal society is not possible. But as an aside, many believe that a society where opportunities and the value of a life are more or less equal is one worth fighting for. My friend Laura says: "I believe that everyone deserves a life where they can control the decisions and processes that determine their fate. A just society is a society where this holds true for all citizens." http://democraciaurbana.blogspot.com/
I do not judge people's hearts. I am judging their actions and how they impact others. I believe thinking analytically of the world around you is a citizen's duty: to determine what you like and dislike about the society you live in. Only with that as a starting point, can you begin to discuss change (in or outside yourself) in a substantial manner. This is not just for the activists. Everyone wants to keep improving herself, to live a life that she deems worth living. For example, you chose to take courses online when you could have chosen the much easier option of not taking them.
As to buying a new car in Xining:
First, you are not the hypocrite I was criticizing above where you say you are in Xining because you are doing good for Tibetans there. Second, the example I gave of ostentation was the 3 story house with 3 maids for 3 people in Beijing. I am careful not to say this is extravagance and that is not, but I don’t think that you having a car is extravagant if you and Amy decided it is much easier than hailing a cab with 3 kids every time. Buses in Xining are excruciatingly slow and difficult to ride not knowing Chinese. Now if you have a Hummer, I believe you should pay all of us for the over-the-top carbon you release and fuel you use.
Lastly, I do not believe we should feel guilty for being born in a better set of conditions than others. That guilt serves no one. But we should be aware that those conditions were not ones we earned, so we should not feel that we have a right to live better than those who were not so lucky. Whether we decide to give to those worse off is what most ethicists say is an obligation. I am more practical and believe it is a choice we make, but we need to be honest with ourselves regarding why we chose what we did.
Thanks for the comment!
Charlene
Charlene
Charlene - another good post. I wanted to chime in on the equality issue (should we pursue greater equality?). If someone isn't convinced that greater equality is a good in and of itself, they should want greater equality because it will improve their own lives in other ways. There is a new book coming out that researches this, and found that the more equality you have in a society, the less crime, better health statistics, fewer teen pregnancies (strange, no?), better education performance, and maybe even less global warming. The book is called The Spirit Level, and the website is http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/
ReplyDeleteAlso in your post, I especially thought this was a good and balanced position:
"Lastly, I do not believe we should feel guilty for being born in a better set of conditions than others. That guilt serves no one. But we should be aware that those conditions were not ones we earned, so we should not feel that we have a right to live better than those who were not so lucky."
And thanks for linking to my blog!
Laura