I'd also like to commend the post "Never Sell Them Your Soul", by the always excellent John Beckett.
****
I consider it a
truism that groups are “better” when their component units are also “better”.
To illustrate that:
- a family functions more healthily if its members are all well-adjusted people;
- a group, perhaps a community volunteer group, functions well when its members are in a comfortable situation in life where they have spare time and energy to devote to the group; and
- the world of nations functions to the benefit of all when its constituent nations are all well-adjusted (which I consider includes democracy and a few other characteristics) and “in a comfortable situation in life”.
On the other hand:
- a family in the grip of domestic violence or child abuse is harming all involved;
- a larger group with a toxic culture (there has been one such volunteer group in my local news lately, and the problems inside Australia’s banks are being exposed by the Royal Commission) harms both its members, those it nominally serves, and others; and
- the world is at risk when nations are at war within themselves or with each other.
I also consider that
this introduces the notion of reciprocity – in this context, the concept that
contributing to something will result in one being better off, which also comes
with the “equal and opposite notion”
that if one’s contribution is not making one better off, something is wrong.
As an illustration of
the good aspects of this:
- a family where its members can communicate comfortably and effectively will be capable of supporting its members during the hard times in life;
- a well-run community volunteer group gives its volunteers a sense of reward and purpose, and aid to those it seeks to help; and
- fair international trade can be mutually beneficial.
On the other hand:
- a family that is focused on the acquisition of wealth, or on the ambitions of one or a few people, will leave some of its members crushed, resentful, and with unrealised potential that may have been far greater than what was focused on (and the family that snarks together doesn’t stay together emotionally);
- a community group that insists on its members donating time or money beyond what is comfortable (especially when the level of expectation was not openly and honestly communicated when people were considering joining) breeds resentment (if a contribution to a group becomes a chore, something may be wrong . . . ), and is likely to find itself lacking in members; and
- nations that impose themselves on others by creating an occupied empire, or an empire of coercive influences, cause massive harm (including within the imperial nation, particularly in the form of harm to the psychology of its citizens) that far outweighs the sense of gladness of the unhealthy individuals driving those imperial aspirations.
As another example of
this, taxes are the prices
individuals pay for living in a civil society, and enable the provision
of roads, schools, hospitals, help when needed, defence when needed, and so on.
When taxes “go bad”
is a subject for considerable debate :)
There is, however, a
point here that sometimes the “mutual
benefit aspect” of these interrelationships goes wrong. Whether it is the
abuser within a family, unhealthy values in a group, or a tyrant suppressing a
nation’s citizens or more broadly the citizens of the world, the reasonable
expectation that being part of a group will be mutually beneficial has been
betrayed.
Some of that is
unquestionably the fault of the members, whether individuals who fail to
address their flaws and take it out on others, leaders of groups who place
their personal quest for power ahead of the wellbeing of those they have not
truly appreciated as volunteers, or tyrants who quest after adulation at any
price (or who wrongly think they are
providing a benefit when it is not that at all) or nations who fail (because of a lack of Will to Intervene [W2I])
to act on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a failure has happened.
There are many
aspects to that failure, but an important one is a failure to recognise
that a failure of the obligation of mutual benefit has occurred. Correcting that failure - especially by improving awareness - is
a key part of the quest for human rights.
The quest for human
rights, which I consider likely goes further back in history
than people think (even beyond the ban on
slavery by Ashoka
of the Maurya
Empire, over two millennia ago), also includes creating effective
mechanisms for ensuring human rights – which
includes respecting human
dignity – are respected and realised.
As the great Dr Marin
Luther King, Jr., said:
“It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless.”
Actually, it should
also be noted that the mechanism which are most effective for enforcing human
rights and dignity will vary:
- in a small tribe millennia ago, ostracism was a powerful, but also very damaging, and thus counter-productive in the long term, so a healthier version of that would be peer disapproval;
- thinking ahead to classical antiquity and the Middle Ages and up to now (when having and/or flaunting individual wealth became “a thing”), for people who are focused on wealth, financial strictures are more important than anything emotionally based; and
- for people who are focused on the physical aspects of life, the equivalent of a sports player being banned from activity for a time – which, a few decades and centuries ago manifested as corporal punishment (centuries ago, including physically damaging measures such as whipping) – may be more effective than fines or disapproval.
Legal mechanisms have
been a particular speciality of the human rights and dignity quest ever since
the Paris
Pact of 1928 and the more widely known Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately, the fight back by elites, oligarchs,
and misguided conservatives has led to a symptomatic focus, rather than
addressing the fear, hate, ignorance (social
bubbles have, in some ways, become more entrenched in recent decades), and
other human failings which underlie the bigotry and other causes of disrespect for
human dignity and rights – and, as indicate by Dr King’s quote, there are
better mechanisms for addressing causative human failings than proscription.
Conservatives actually
do have a rightful place: they ensure -
or should - that introducing something new is not done by throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as was the
case with many changes under conservative governments in my home state in the
90s, and that no-one is left behind,
which is a notable failure of the current craze for flashy electronic gizmos
and “devices”.
They’re not always a
better mousetrap, you know . . . :)
Care and thought always
need to go into working for human rights and dignity. Circumstances have
changed over the millennia – in many ways for the better (e.g., more widespread education in many parts of the world, and
recognition that it should be universal), but not always, and there is much
work yet to be done. Simple lack of awareness of others’ experience, of
personal biases and other failings, and of procedural inadequacies needs to be
countered by education (enlightenment, in
a sense), the quest to be better human beings, rather than richer economic
cogs, needs to be embraced by all of humanity, the lessons and inspirations of
history need to be heeded, and we need to recognise that individual and group should
exist in a state of true and genuine mutual
benefit.
