Self-Interest and the Common Good: Progress?

common-good 2

In the earliest human societies, which were hunter-gatherer bands, self-interest and the common good were one and the same, although the concept of the common good would not be formally described until the fourth century CE.

The struggle for survival of both individual and group was their shared primary concern and was inherent in the band lifestyle, which required collective action for foraging and protection from predators.

Over time, bands joined together to form tribes in which hierarchies evolved as a form of social organization. With the advent of agriculture, tribes gave up their nomadic, hunter-gatherer lifestyle and became farmers. Farming and sedentary settlement gave rise to the concept of private property, and self-interest began to replace communal motivation and activities.

Then, when tribes established cities, their hierarchies became the dominant social structure. Self-interest and the common good were no longer synonymous. As society’s transition continued from cities to states and nations, the common good became subordinate to self-interest. This situation, unfortunately, persists in our world today.

It was not a quick or simple transition. Many civilizations arose, shaping our history to varying degrees on foundations of many different economic systems. The most onerous among these was slavery, the epitome of political and economic inequality. Under slavery, there is no common good at all—only slaves and masters, rich and poor.

It is fascinating to realize that the cultures and economic systems supported by slavery have since perished—as if Plutarch’s pronouncement that “An imbalance between rich and poor is the most fatal ailment of all republics” had the power of prophecy. A partial list of the fallen: Sumer, Egypt, Greece, Rome; the colonial empires of Britain, France, Spain, Germany, and Portugal; and the antebellum American South.

Although political inequality is gradually disappearing as more countries become democracies (or at least, more democratic), economic inequality between haves and have-nots is actually increasing—ironically, with the active support of some of those same governments.

For example, in the US of the 1960s and 1970s, ongoing corporate tax exemptions/forgiveness and subsidies, along with a general abandonment of antitrust enforcement, encouraged the formation of huge conglomerates. In the 1980s, corporate and high-income tax rates were cut substantially, the “too big to fail” concept was introduced in the Continental of Illinois Bank bailout, and S&L deregulation cost taxpayers $1.2 trillion. Then, because banks were allowed to engage in investment activities in the 1990s, irresponsible risk-taking led to the worldwide financial collapse of 2008, with a $700 billion bailout of “too big to fail” institutions in the US alone.

It cannot be claimed that any of those governmental actions was taken to enhance the common good or to satisfy the fundamental human drive toward freedom and equality and building a better future. Rather, each action was taken to satisfy the self-interest of the wealthy.

For the future, as more and more people become aware of their political and economic power and begin to exercise it, we can look for a resurgence of concern for the common good in both political and economic systems. But it will not come easily.

Oliver & Barbara

The Importance of Sharing

“Sharing” can be conceptualized as the mutual enjoyment or expression of an idea, thing, feeling, or experience (such as equality, a meal, love, or sex). Sharing was and is fundamental to the development of all human relationships and civilizations.

Its importance is underscored by the fact that it is very ancient. As noted in To Find the Way of Love, sharing was part of creation, when the fundamental particles first formed relationships (i.e. shared potentials) and the evolution of the universe began. 

The book also posits that the eventual appearance of life on Earth 200–300 million years ago was accompanied by a divine imperative for all species: “Life shall beget life.” At first, sharing wasn’t really a part of that picture; competing for resources was. To fulfill the divine imperative, an individual animal’s most important actions were simply to eat and have sex.

But eventually, when the Age of Mammals began, evolution of the ancestral brain led animals—and ultimately, humans—to develop altruism, a concern for others, which was most fully expressed through parenting. The imperative to beget life then came to have two seemingly contradictory, but in fact complementary, aspects: self-interest and altruism. 

In practical terms, those aspects mean the individual must sufficiently care for itself to be capable of reproduction and must also be committed to the protection and nurturance of progeny until they achieve maturity. And that means—even mandates—relationship.

To fulfill the imperative’s self-interest aspect, eating and having sex are still paramount for most individuals. But to fulfill the altruism aspect, an individual has many choices among countless potential actions that enhance another’s life or chances of survival, even at a cost or peril to the self.

Sharing simultaneously satisfies the requirements of both self-interest and altruism. It’s vital to help our children understand sharing from an early age, to ensure their strongest, healthiest, and happiest foundation in the relationships that make human life and society possible.

Barbara & Oliver

 

Takeaways:

• Sharing was part of the process of creation.

• Sharing is essential to the development of human relationships.

• Sharing can satisfy both self-interest and altruism.

• It is very important for children to understand sharing early in life.

Inequality and Evil

I mention in my book, To Find the Way of Love, that although the concepts of inequality and evil are absent from each of the dual theories of the Universe’s creation—the physical and the spiritual—the concepts of freedom and equality do appear in both. Freedom and equality are conceived in these theories as characteristics possessed by all of the fundamental particles that comprise all matter. The particles are equal in that no particle is better than any other or controls any other; and yet, particles can be different from one another, as iron differs from oxygen and protons differ from electrons. They are different but equal.

Only in recent millennia did this natural paradox become important, and problematic, as humans began to attach value judgments to differences. The reasoning arose that if two things were different, one had to be better than the other. This reasoning was extended, incorrectly, to people; if two people were different, one was superior to the other. Thus, inequality and evil appeared together—long after the Universe came to be.

Evil is not some mysterious thing: it is any act or belief that interferes with freedom and equality, or with the formation of free and equal relationships. It’s only a matter of belief, for example, that because men and women are different, one must therefore be better than the other. Such assumptions of inequality are the root of evil.

Perhaps ironically, this human propensity to make comparisons and turn them into negative judgments evolved from a crucial survival mechanism that first appeared eons ago in the mammalian brain. With a new brain structure, the limbic system, came mammals’ drive and ability to nurture and protect their offspring; and unlike their reptilian forebears, mammalian brains carried an innate prohibition against eating their brethren. This meant they also had to evolve a capability to rapidly identify others of their own kind, thereby solving the “eat or greet” dilemma posed when meeting a stranger.

Unfortunately, what was once a positive survival mechanism has since become a destructive, self-limiting means for discriminating against anyone or anything that’s different from the self or what the self is accustomed to. It would be a better world if each of us took responsibility for our biases and their consequences. It would be a safer world for all of us if differences were not so often, automatically, imbued with value judgments. It would be an impressive step forward for humanity and its future if we could move beyond those ancient, instinctive discriminatory impulses to a more conscious recognition of the potential value in our differences, and to an awareness of the necessity for treating all humans, despite differences, with respect as equals. Perhaps becoming mindful of the way of love can be a key to making that transition.

Oliver & Barbara

How Not To Screw Up A Relationship

We recently saw some interesting figures on single-ness in the United States. Two years ago, 43% of Americans over 18 were single; of that group, 61% had never married, 24% were divorced, and 15% were widowed (CNN Living, August 19, 2010). Then and now, alarming numbers of failed partnerships reflect the difficulty of meeting relationship challenges. Nevertheless, singles in America ten years ago spent over $489 million in one year to find each other, and despite ever-rising divorce rates, television ads for dating services show that they’re still at it. (Imagine what today’s expenditure might be.)

Who’d have thought statistics and commercials could speak to human longings for relationship? And results from study after study continually testify to longevity’s correlation with happiness in relationships and social networks. Bad relationships are stressful, lonely, and unhealthful. Good relationships are as good as it gets!

The contentment and happiness possible through mutually supportive partnerships is an achievement that supports health, stability, a sense of belonging, and opportunities for growth. It’s easy to forget, though, that relationship achievements, like all other meaningful achievements, take work, effort, skill, even practice. For those who’ve found their partners, and for those who will, the great challenge becomes not to screw it up.

It’s a given that all people come with their own strengths and weaknesses. Differences between individuals are inevitable but don’t have to spell relationship doom. They can even contribute positively: differences mean that together, a couple can do better than either one separately, because between them they have more resources available. Recognizing strength in differences, however, requires both a tolerance of differences and a mutuality of respect. If either person in a dyad doesn’t regard the other as an equal, trouble looms.

Along with respect, sharing and listening are “intimacy essentials.” Listening, though not always easy, is an indispensable part of sharing. Patience is another important element, especially in times of stress. All of these elements build trust, and all are crucial buttresses of a successful intimate relationship.

Close relationships demand an honesty with self and other that can be difficult or scary. Many people are conflict-avoidant and keep differences hidden rather than airing them; unfortunately, this creates and perpetuates secrecy and emotional distance. It may take courage to speak up, but doing so is a significant demonstration of trust in ourselves and in our partner. Saying “This is who I am, this is how I feel” is healthy (and gets easier with practice).

Secrecy is to be avoided. The resentment secrecy feeds is toxic and can build an impenetrable wall, turning partners into enemies. To combat this, both parties must be willing to act with honesty and courage to clear the air. Whenever relating gets difficult for any reason, a first critical question to ask yourself is, “How am I contributing to this?” The next step is to own up to it and invite your partner to meet you halfway.

Everyone brings baggage of past hurts, traumas, and disappointments, along with a host of assumptions and expectations, into adulthood and into relationships. Self-relationship and unresolved issues are major factors in any attempted partnership. We often choose a partner who puts us up against our old wounds and unfinished business. With honesty and courage, people have many chances to grow and heal within a dyad instead of reenacting past dramas and unhappiness.

Eventually, as daily routines and preoccupations take over, couples can come to disregard the specialness of their achievement together. But we’ve found a great reminder: weekly “couple meetings,” to talk about each other’s actions that we appreciated during the week. It’s also a good opportunity to clear up misunderstandings or anything that felt awry. Even 15 minutes put aside for significant sharing, without interference from other commitments, sends a mutual message of valuing special time together no matter what else is going on.

The longer we two are a couple, the more strongly we feel that intimate relationships offer bountiful rewards, and the more often we’re reminded that reaping these rewards requires practicing honesty, courage, patience, kindness, sharing, self-review, self-control…and upholding a basic tenet that underlies the ability to have any kind of positive interpersonal relationship: respect for human equality.

Oliver and Barbara