nothing cries louder than a liberal who can't impose their idealism on the guy they want to pay for that idealism
Reader comment on item: Responding to Joshua Muravchik about "Moderate Islamists"
in response to reader comment: The "good nature" of man

Submitted by trans-parere (Canada), May 12, 2008 at 22:57

Dear Jennifer.

Great post. I think you're spot on where you rolled "Liberalism" into the natural goodness of man. Though I don't think the extreme liberalism exercised in todays western democracies is anything more than [anti-good] deconstructionism. However let me first answer the question you finished with and I think my take on mans natural good will become clearer. I'll ease into the assumption of the moral authority of liberalism. :-)

"What is your definition of the "good nature of man"?

In my opinion [not to get too deep into free will and determinism] life is a contest of duality. Good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, positive vs. negative, etc., even as you have alluded to, dialectic argument over emotive responses. MOST people as individuals independent of "authoritative coercion" will by human nature do what is best based on their knowledge and experience. And MOST will [independent of "authoritative coercion"] through observation or direct communication adopt improvements as they see them and acknowledge improvements to their immediate world. That is the basis for all human growth and is mans natural goodness.

The adaptation to and the adopting of good as a mechanism for survival is evolutionary gene typing stuff. Societies that consistently get it wrong aren't. As a living example, with out the masses of world aid it has received over the years Palestine would have died ages ago. It is not a society based on being the best it can be. It's not based on being good. This is not a proclamation against the people living with in the borders of Palestine alone, but against the "authority" governing the intention and direction of Palestine.

The real problem begins with 'authority" [not to be confused with law] and just how much authority we transfer to a stranger to hold sway over our independent behaviour to facilitate organised society. That "authority" was to be used judiciously and respectfully and never to be oppressive. Over time those vying for social position have come to believe that they know best, are an actual authority, and can "engineer" the best [in their opinion] as if 'best' is an existing product to be marketed and sold to the public like their bio. And while they will ramble off a litany of "life education and experience" for their resume of authority none matches their reality. Good for all has to be just that, and not some moral extrapolation based on an altruistic ideal paid for by someone else's sweat equity.

It doesn't matter if the talk is about religion, politics, education, health care, effective governing or best business practises. Eventually during the conversation an assumption of authority will come forward that will make a definitive pronouncement. The conversation will then end leaving those participants other than the "authority" just as fragmented in opinion as when the discussion began. What could have been a meeting of minds with a progression to resolution becomes lost. Some will not question the authority and will be heard the next day repeating the authoritative assumption as gospel. Others will consider the authority position as "educated" and compare there own reasoning. A few will question the authority position and hold their own opinion open for fuller debate understanding how they arrived at their position based on available facts and life experiences. They will not be coerced by intimidation to adopt a contrary position.

What we have is some good people dutifully following authority, other equally good people accepting of that authority, and a few actually questioning the validity of that authority as independent, educated [not schooled], life experienced sentient beings. There are too few of the latter and too many of the former.

So now we can look at Canada, the U.S., Europe, Australia, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, Burma, Malaysia, China, etc. and configure religion, politics, education, community harmony etc. into the mix and pretty well come up with a proportional representation of opinions based on subject and authority. Most will submit to the power of authority with out question. Some will accept the authority even if they think personally otherwise. And a few will question the validity of the authority based on what they know and understand.

As I said in another post. Goodness or doing good is a catch twenty -two event. Good people must do good, for good, for good to succeed. Selfish, self-idolizing, authority seekers selling sweet nothings to buy your vote and run your country or your state or your community for the next four years are not doing good. Nor are they about to make any change to the system that lets them achieve their authority by being false and chanting falsehoods based on feel good, emotive, moralist finger paintings. Selfish, self-idolizing, authority seekers preaching in the name of religion that set people apart from one another, is coercive, racist, or advocates hate is not doing good. Nor are they likely to make any changes willingly if it demotes their sense of authority to impose their will and thinking over their fellow man.

It all comes down to leadership. And the best leadership is quiet unassuming direction and encouragement. Given that, good people will rise above those "authorities" who hope to gain by subservience. Given the chance they will go on to greater contributions to their societies freed from no better an expression than 'the rape of their society' as those who'd rather than be good and do good for the good of all exercise a negative influence over us to maintain their sense of power and authority.

Some quotes from Plato. One of the chief formers of our western culture.

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Cheers.

trans-parere

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.