Self-Interest and the Common Good: Progress?

Posted on February 12, 2013 by Oliver Deehan

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

A Peak Experience

Posted on January 8, 2013 by Oliver Deehan

My body is a microscopic speck.
My spirit is a universe of light.
My consciousness is in touch with all that is,
And overall, an overwhelming peace.

This poem was inspired by and describes a spiritual experience I had about 30 years ago.

Sitting quietly alone in the family room of my home, I became aware that my physical sense of being was diminishing until it was a tiny spark of light. At the same time, my consciousness was expanding until it was in contact with everything in the Universe.

The experience lasted for about 45 minutes and was succeeded by an incredible sense of peace, which lasted for about three weeks. During this period, life proceeded normally. Some good things happened, some not so good. But my overall sense was, “Everything is okay,” and the experience has affected my thinking and behavior ever since.

Still, its significance only occurred to me recently when a friend was describing an especially moving sermon by the pastor of her church, on “Saying ‘Yes’ to Everything”—I realized that was what was happening during the period of peace I experienced.

I am one with you and we with all else that is in our Universe.

The Importance of Sharing

Posted on October 29, 2012 by Oliver Deehan

“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.

Whatever Happened to “the Loyal Opposition”?

Posted on October 15, 2012 by Oliver Deehan

For many of us, an awareness of politics first arose in a high school civics classroom. Among the topics typically covered in that curriculum was “the loyal opposition.” This concept originated in the British Parliament to support bipartisanship in a two-party governing system in which the minority party could disagree with the majority without being considered disloyal or treasonous.

It spread throughout the British Empire and was adopted in the United States during the Presidential campaign of Jefferson and Hamilton. Under this concept, the President’s party controls the executive branch and the legislative branch (Congress) is divided between the parties according to the votes of local elections.

Although it may seem paradoxical or counterintuitive for opposition to be a unifying tool, that was nevertheless the idea.

Under this concept, each party recognizes the legitimacy of the other party as well as its equal commitment to country, Constitution, and the common good. Each party, however, is free to promote its own vision of government, and differences between the two are to be debated.

The opposition of the minority party is to be accepted as loyal (not seen as treason or sedition) when it proposes a reasonable alternative for debate. Ultimately, whatever the outcome of a debate, both parties are supposed to support the decision.

This concept and process worked for a long time in American government because both parties recognized the need for compromise to resolve contentious issues—but eventually, in the 1970s, decay set in.

Like an invasion of pathogens, lobbyists and special-interest groups contaminated the body politic through campaign contributions. Various power-seeking individuals, corporations, and institutions became excessively invested, financially and emotionally, in the outcome of legislative debates.

As the contamination of money spread further into both parties, they began to view each other as “not like me” and therefore dangerous, echoing an ancient survival mechanism used to identify predators or prey.

Politicians, increasingly indebted to special-interest groups for campaign contributions, more often used “back-room deals” to avoid open debates. These led to the end of compromise, because secrecy allowed the risk of public exposure of selfishness or inequity to be avoided. Self-serving individuals in both parties began to demonize their opponents.

Eventually, the unifying concept of loyal opposition was replaced by destructive partisanship, damaging the country and the common good.

A revival of the loyal opposition concept and its practice would require the elimination, or at least limitation, of money’s contamination in public elections. The ultimate, though presently impossible, solution would be public financing of elections.

But meanwhile, an excellent beginning would be an amendment to the Constitution that’s been proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (see www.berniesanders.com), which would overturn the deplorable decision of the Supreme Court that currently allows corporations and individuals to make unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions.

Quick Blog Takeaways:

“The loyal opposition” supports bipartisanship.
The deterioration of the loyal opposition began in the 1970s.
The loyal opposition was killed by the infection of money.
Resurrection of the loyal opposition requires a Constitutional amendment.
The people have the power to pass such an amendment.

Oliver & Barbara

Avoid the Infection

Posted on August 13, 2012 by Oliver Deehan

There is health—mental, physical, spiritual, all-encompassing—and there is what we like to call the infection. It appears wherever there’s human life, and it can spread rapidly. Worldwide, vast numbers of people carry the infection. See: theft, murder, terrorism, fear mongering, racism, jingoism, denial, belief in the divine right of those-who-have. The infection’s root cause nihilism, sociopathy or other a belief that we should have what we want regardless of impact on others, and a belief that we can never have enough.

Defining how much is enough and how much is excess has been difficult in the modern era. And who gets to decide? We aren’t speaking here of the world’s worst and most obvious of desperations, such as the billions on the verge of starvation (while others are upset if foie gras becomes unavailable). We’re talking about the addiction to “more,” and about its consequences. This was brought to mind by a piece in The Economist in July 2002, which describes consumerism and “the 1 Percent” as creating a hunger in the others, “an insatiable longing.

Pondering the phrase “insatiable longing,” we remembered a close-to-home example of the phenomenon some years ago, when one of our daughters brought a sensible, hard-working young woman to visit. Within a few days, she was splurging madly on boots she’d never have considered before, breathlessly describing the feeling of being amidst so much opulence in the endless display of must-have things set on the glittery streets of Beverly Hills. We think (hope) sanity returned when she went home…

Unfortunately, this infection isn’t heralded by skull and crossbones. It flies in on the gossamer wings of that which is to be had, which IS had by the world’s elite: personal planes, personal islands, personal armies and security squads, boutique medical care, multiple homes, seemingly unlimited wealth… The infection’s spread is fueled by the belief that having more makes you more—eligible for membership in the private club of “the special.”

How do we keep from catching the infection? It brings no lasting happiness. It leads to dissatisfaction, to feeling that we’re less. It fuels envy, rage, insecurity—nothing healthy. Rather, it encourages unhealthy behavior. It encourages inequality and feelings of superiority; it separates us. It tantalizes us into consuming not what’s necessary, not even what we can afford, but what we can put on credit because we MUST HAVE IT. The infection creates, sustains, and supports an insatiable longing that leaves any consideration of debt behind. And yet, no material possession can satisfy that longing more than very, very briefly.

Some suggestions for keeping perspective and avoiding the “infection” include, try to understand the hunger expressed as material longings. You already know in your gut that the fleeting satisfaction of consuming is indeed fleeting and no match for feeling love, belonging and acceptance. Never go out shopping when you are feeling unhappy or insecure. Instead, try exercise or calling a friend. It might also help to play the game of imagining that you are trying to create a longing, in others, to buy something. How would you pitch it? That might be the pitch that you are buying.

Then, imagine it’s six months later, when the thrill of consuming has worn off and you’re left with a credit card bill.

It might be helpful to spend ten minutes each day focused on something with no monetary price tag: something you have seen, heard, tasted, touched or remember.

Experience a simple pleasure: listen to music, take a walk and be conscious of your surroundings, talk with someone you care about, relish a healthy meal. Then, go inside yourself and make an inventory of what soothes you. Use it.

Most importantly, think about what is enough for you.

Oliver and Barbara

The Happiness Factor

Posted on August 6, 2012 by Oliver Deehan

Everyone goes through dark times: loss, illness, disappointment, rejection—universal experiences in our journey through life. Happiness, however, is another matter. It is much prized, but what is it? A mind-set, a condition, something reserved for the few and out of reach for most? And how does a person find it, or do it?

We like Abraham Lincoln’s thought on the subject: “People are just as happy as they choose to be.” Perhaps you’ve decided that wherever you are in your life is okay; or, perhaps you’re doing whatever you can to be someplace else. True happiness assumes that you can have dreams while still having a toehold in reality, and further, that you can be content with what you have rather than constantly feeling compelled to compete for more.

But in our consumption-driven society, the thrust of the economic engine is to convince us that we need more, and the prevailing message is that we’ll be happier, sexier, smarter, and hipper if we have more. Unfortunately, that focus is actually the enemy of happiness, because the root of greed is “every man for himself”—which is also the root of disconnection and loneliness. The cost of the fear and anxiety that brings is very high. We’d be better off focusing more on sharing, and helping our children learn to share, and understanding that we’re all connected.

We’d like to make the following suggestions for contributing to your own happiness:

Disengage from fear-mongers and the onslaught of experts and talking heads filling airtime and print-space.
Realize that pessimistic possibilities become probabilities the more often they’re repeated as facts; don’t confuse possibility with probability.
Look at the truth of what’s really under your control in your world; know that the only person you can change is you.
Make an inventory of what you have in your life; nothing is too small to be included.
Practice gratitude for life and what you have.
Treat people as you wish to be treated; it encourages reciprocity.
Make every interaction an example of your humanity.
Resist the temptation to see people as more or less; we’re equal.

Try to imagine at the end of your life’s journey, as the world and its conceits fall away, what will seem important—what will stay with you. It is highly unlikely that you’ll be dwelling on more, bigger/better, if only… Imagine what would be the image, the memory you’d take with you. We’ve witnessed the peace and grace that comes with acceptance at the end of life. The secret of happiness may well be to learn from that wisdom: to practice, during our lifetimes, acceptance and gratitude for what is, while at the same time striving to learn, grow, and change what we can, beginning with ourselves. We can choose to be happy.