Here’s a shocking admission: I haven’t given a moment’s thought to the carnage in Myanmar (or “Burma,” as I continue to call that far-off place). Should I berate myself for this cold-heartedness? After all, everywhere you turn you find people loudly declaring their solidarity with the unfortunate victims of the cyclone there. The death toll mounts day by day: 10,000, 50,000–I even saw a headline that speculated 1,000,000 might die if nothing were done.
The numbers, of course, are pure fabrications, so let me speculate that 10,000,000 will die unless you wring your hands and loudly tell the world how much you care–before, of course, you sit down for dinner tonight with the wife and kids and talk about your plans for the weekend.
I’ve always found such abstract benevolence a bit sick-making. It’s what Dickens, in Bleak House, described as “telescopic philanthropy,” the fervent pretense of concern for others, the farther away and less connected with you, the more fervent–and more empty, of course. John Stuart Mill specialized in a particularly unctuous form of this deformation. In Utilitarianism, Mill argued that “as between his own happiness and that of others, justice requires [everyone] to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.” Do you believe that? No, I don’t either. As Mill’s great critic, James Fitzjames Stephen noted in his classic polemic Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (if you haven’t read it, you should), if Mill was right about being “strictly impartial” about one’s own happiness and that of others, then “I can only say that nearly the whole of nearly every human creature is one continued course of injustice, for nearly everyone passes his life in providing the means of happiness for himself and those who are closely connected with him, leaving others all but entirely out of account.”
Yes, but isn’t this a bad thing? Not at all. Such selfishness–if “selfishness” is the correct word–is not only proper, it actually conduces to more happiness than the opposite–the pretense of universal benevolence. Stephen explains:
The man who works from himself outwards, whose conduct is governed by ordinary motives, and who acts with a view to his own advantage and the advantage of those who are connected with himself in definite, assignable ways, produces in the ordinary course of things much more happiness to others . . . than a moral Don Quixote who is always liable to sacrifice himself and his neighbors. On the other hand, a man who has a disinterested love of the human race–that is to say, who has got a fixed idea about some way of providing for the management of the concerns of mankind–is an unaccountable person . . . who is capable of making his love for men in general the ground of all sorts of violence against men in particular. The real truth is that the human race is so big, so various, so little known, that no one can really love it.
The moral? It is easy but fundamentally hypocritical to pretend to care about 10,000 (or 50,000 or 1,000,000) strangers. It is harder, and also more beneficial to the world, to care about oneself and one’s family and friends.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
9 Comments
Judith:The choice; concern for the universal, “abstract” humanity or the individual, self-absorbed self…it’s never A or B…it’s both A & B and sometimes a more complex C. Besides, concern for the distant faceless brother, as a way to go beyond one’s self, is, in a backward sense,also a selfish act bc/ it contribute to & ennobles one’s character which makes living with one’s self more agreeable. I certainly wouldn’t want to spend time with myself if I became desensitized to humanity & it’s plight across the Pacific. Suppose, it’s all a matter of weighing the dialectic in man when one takes the time to be aware & reflect…now that’s the challenge.
May 13, 2008 - 6:42 am LSD:You put it well, and I guess you will probably be attacked for it.
While it is a good thing that Americans are willing to give; even separate from the question of the aid being received or not, I think you are correct in detecting the smell of something rotten. The call to mission, or responsibility that is implied by ngo’s when they suggest that the american psyche, in particular, is expected to possess a world view is obnoxious, and even racist. I challenge the idea that a world view is even possible. There are no short cuts to being a better person. -Better to have a clear-eyed appreciation for your own point-of-view.
May 13, 2008 - 10:11 am Judith:Concern for the universal “abstract” humanity or the individual self-absorbed self…it’s never an A or B chice…it’s both A & B and sometimes a more complex C. Besides, concern for the distant faceless brother, as a way to go beyond one’s self, is, in a backward sense,also a selfish act bc/ it enobles one’s character which makes living with one’s self more agreeable. I certainly wouldn’t want to spend time with myself if I became desensitized to humanity & it’s plight across the Pacific. Suppose, it’s all a matter of weighing the dialectic in man when one takes the time to be aware & reflect…now that’s the challenge.
May 13, 2008 - 11:03 am CJL:“…a man who has a disinterested love of the human race–that is to say, who has got a fixed idea about some way of providing for the management of the concerns of mankind–is an unaccountable person . . . who is capable of making his love for men in general the ground of all sorts of violence against men in particular.” Sound like any democratic presidential candidates you know?
May 13, 2008 - 11:07 am Karen Colvard:Roger,
I would fully support any argument about the ineffectiveness of the current “international community” and its aid to the developing world. A lot of what passes for accomplishment is self-serving do-goodism. However, your notion that we are responsible only to ourselves and those close to us? I think we may have a duty to transcend such selfishness, and selfishness it IS. How about this, from the Gospel of Luke, chapter 10 verses 25-37.
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn in Jericho and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” New International Version
All the best,
May 13, 2008 - 12:26 pm Frances:Karen
Dear Roger,
May 13, 2008 - 3:10 pm Sean Casey:I am an admirer of your insights, and I agree to a certain extent. I believe you are reacting to the pressure to force feelings. And you are right, we shouldn’t feel guilty for being happy or content or not continually wringing our hands in grief.
Amazing isn’t it, that Americans are capable of caring about those outside their tribe or family. We just have to make our caring for those near us actual in work and deed (like the Samaritan). Other than contribute money (and our taxes), remember we can always pray for those in need.
What a most splendid and delicious way of telling people to go fuck themselves! And die! Kudos to you, Roger, and God bless all your majestic mischief. Shall I see you at polo this afternoon?
May 16, 2008 - 7:39 am reena:couldn’t agree more. charity begins at home. most people who claim to care about myanmar actually do didlee-squat for anyone. one thing they say about liberals (but i think it applies to many people liberal or not) is that: they love humanity but don’t like humans very much. holds true every time time i stop and observe “do-gooders”. even gandhi was horrible to his own family in the name of the nation of india…!
May 29, 2008 - 8:22 pm