Recently, both Barack Obama and John McCain were
interviewed by mega-evangelist Rick Warren.
Each man responded in a similar vein to two different questions.
Their answers contain a confusion that they, and most Americans,
have about an idea that most people unthinkingly accept and that is the
cause of all the suffering now going on in the world.
Obama replying to the question “What do you
consider your greatest moral failing” said he most regretted drinking
and taking drugs during his youth. "I
was so obsessed with me and the reasons I might be dissatisfied, I
couldn't focus on other people”. He
called this being selfish, and that as he got more involved in community
activity on behalf of others he stopped being so self-destructive and
became more responsible.
McCain touted service to country, giving as
examples serving in the Peace Corps and his own service in the military.
The country’s greatest shortcoming, McCain said, has been to not
dedicate itself to
"a cause greater than ourselves."
A few weeks later, both men were guests
at a
forum dedicated to encouraging national service.
Despite the different slant of their
stated moral ideals; - Obama, consistent with his leftist background,
idealizes concern for others rather than oneself, McCain’s “something
higher than oneself” approach allows a more religious interpretation to
his idealism - the common denominator is that concern with non-self,
i.e. with something outside of the self, is good, while concern with the
self is self-destructive.
This is the essence of a moral code that these two men are preaching and
that most Americans unthinkingly accept.
In fact though the so called “selfish”
person who was Obama and who is implied by McCain are not concerned with
what is in their own self-interest, not in any rational sense of the
word “selfish” or “self-interest”.
A drunk, drug-addict is miserably
unhappy, and on the road to self-destruction
– how is that being self-ish?
On the other hand, how can neglecting ones own needs in favor of
serving others’ needs make one happy and fulfilled?
There seems to be a contradiction here.
If a man were genuinely concerned with leading a good life, he
would have to conclude that excessive drinking and taking drugs is not
in his self interest, and would take pains to discover what to do to
achieve happiness. When and
if he makes that commitment it does not follow, neither in logic nor in
fact, that service to others is the way to achieve it.
A rational course of action for a man concerned with his all
around well-being would be to support himself materially and
psychologically by pursuing a challenging and interesting profession,
marry a woman he can love, and perhaps raise a family.
These actions are not characterized in their essence by giving up
one’s interests and working for others; but by their exact opposite -
self-interest – the selfishness of a man whose highest ideal and
standard is to live a personally fulfilling and happy life.
Living by the principle of placing the
interests of others above one’s own is called Altruism.
Altruism’s essential criterion for what constitutes a moral
action is that the beneficiary be anyone but oneself.
Left out is any discussion of what constitutes a benefit.
Is it good to give money to feed the starving in
Africa while I go hungry?
If so, do I rise to the level of a Saint if I deny myself all
food? Is it good to kill or
enslave anyone who is not a member of my religion or tribe?
Is it good to be a Nazi and live, not for myself, but for my
race? These are all selfless
actions – but are they moral?
John McCain touts his own service in
the military as fulfilling the ideal of living for something higher then
self. But why does a
man join the military? There
could be many reasons but the most honorable, is that he values liberty
and does not want to live as a slave, as, for example, the soldiers who
fought against British subjugation in the American Revolution and those
who stood up to Nazi fascism in World War II.
I would ask John McCain, is liberty not
in your self interest? Is
the man who chooses not to fight when his country is threatened the one
who truly values his life?
It depends on what you consider to be
in your self-interest. A
rational man, a man who sees the importance of liberty to his own life,
who undertakes the responsibility of satisfying his needs across the
span of a lifetime, and who has the courage of his convictions will be
willing to risk his life to defend it rather than live as less than a
man in slavery. On the other
hand, a man who is only concerned with living unthinkingly for the
pleasure of the moment will not care to consider the long range
consequences of his failure to defend liberty.
But which man has a better chance of achieving a long happy life?
The first sort of man is in charge of his life, while the second
sort of man has abdicated thought to the emotion of the moment and will
easily surrender to chance, drugs, or to any dictator offering easy
answers and empty promises.
The problem with McCain’s and Obama’s
thinking is that they (and most people) equate morality with living for
others. How has this idea
gained such ascendency that most people consider it to be a self-evident
truth? Altruism, after all,
is an idea, a principle, and if true it will bear scrutiny.
Altruism does not try to define a set
of rational principles to guide men in living.
It simply says that whatever you do is OK, as long as it is done
for others and not for yourself.
But that has been the principle behind the bloodiest tyrannies in
man’s history. From the
religious persecutions of the middle ages when it was held that worldly
concerns were base and the good consisted of living according to God’s
arbitrary will, to Nazi Germany when men were told to subsume their
selfish interests for the sake of the race, to communist Russia and
China when individuals were held as interchangeable ciphers in service
to that non-existent entity called “the people”.
The good is not to live for something
other than oneself, but to live by something wider than the pleasure of
the moment, i.e. to live according to principle.
Man’s nature requires and enables him to think about the entire
course of his life and project the future consequences of present
actions. A man who holds his
life sacred and respects that same principle in others does not end up
as a drunken, drug addict. A
man who, for whatever reason, see’s his own life as meaningless is
headed for destruction.
In which country are men best able to
live productive happy lives if they choose?
The answer is - the same country where men more consistently live
for their own selfish interests - the
United States.
America is the country that
enshrines self-interest as a basic principle in its Declaration of
Independence. The idea that
all men have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is
not based on a morality of self-abnegation but of rational
self-interest. Are not life
and liberty selfish values?
What is the pursuit of happiness if not a selfish act? What would be the
status of a man who did not care about his own life or liberty, but only
about liberty for others?
The question sounds ridiculous, but that is the sort of dilemma the
irrational idea of Altruism leads to.
Obama and McCain are not evil men; they
are simply mouthing teachings that go back two thousand years -
teachings that have never been examined critically.
Hail the day when man thinks of himself as neither servant nor
served but as true equals- that is the ideal that the Declaration of
Independence is trying to teach us.
Hail the day when there appears the
candidate that says unashamedly that the good is to live for yourself,
that it is good to live rationally and strive to fulfill your own
potential. Fight for liberty
because it benefits you.
Live for your happiness by rational principles, recognize that same
right in others, and we will all prosper together.
I think that a candidate who preached
this kind of a message could be elected president.
What rational person does not appreciate the difficulty of
undertaking the life-long task of making for oneself a happy and
fulfilling life? What
self-respecting person wants another to live his life for him?
McCain would have to stop his “I am the
servant of the people” speeches.
What could a candidate offer people instead?
It is the responsibility of elected leaders to ensure a
politically level playing field by upholding objective laws, defending
honest citizens against criminals and the nation against foreign
aggression. The best thing
the government could do is concentrate on these areas and stop making
pie-in-the-sky promises.
Honest people accept the challenge of
seeking their own happiness.
A big part of that is undertaking the responsibility for one’s material
and spiritual prosperity. A
politically free country is the basic pre-condition for this and the
first responsibility of a politician.
External threats are obviously in a politician’s sphere, but look
what we have done to limit people’s choices within our own country.
Today every aspect of life is regulated, from the FDA telling us
what to eat to social security controlling how we save for retirement.
All of these agencies and rules are broadcasting one message:
people do not have the ability to live their own lives; they need big
brother to guide them. This
is the kind of thing a morality of “service” leads to.
The Democrats are explicit about this, always bewailing the
condition of the average citizen, citing handicapped children and blind
grandmothers as examples of the difficulties the average person faces.
A candidate who spoke about having, a
vision of a free, proud self-sufficient people who were each and every
one entitled to live rich fulfilling lives, would not need to be pit one
group against another; rich against poor, unions against business, black
against white. He would be
addressing each and every citizen as individuals not as members of a
pressure group; making each and every one of them a potential
constituent. In doing this
he would be appealing to each individual in the most personal of ways –
to his mind. Not as members
of a herd yearning to serve and belong, but as free-standing individuals
united in a common cause – liberty, freedom, happiness – the most
selfish and moral of pursuits.
