Who Are You?

I know I've already talked about Ayn Rand and The Fountainhead. I have an excuse about bringing it up again though. First, I read The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. Second, I wrote an essay for a scholarship on The Fountainhead, so I had to do some review. I came to a bit of a different conclusion than my previous post.

Ayn Rand was right about one thing; one thing that is central to the book but one I honestly overlooked (or at least didn't mention in my other post.) Previously, I had critiqued the idea of selfishness as a value. But the point of The Fountainhead is about defining yourself. Ayn is contending that you should be a "self-sufficient man" in the sense others should not define who you are or what you believe. Here is where Oscar Wilde comes into play with an excellent quote from Dorian Gray, "… to influence a person is to give him one's own soul. He does not think his natural thoughts, or burn with his natural passions. His virtues are not real to him. His sins, if there are such things as sins, are borrowed. He becomes an echo of some one else's music, an actor of a part that has not been written for him. The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly – that is what each of us is here for."

Too many people are letting others define them, it is true. Why do you think Dr. Phil and Oprah are still so immensely popular? They tell you how to think, what to read, and, effectively, who you are. Culture seeks to define people, what they wear, what they like, and who they are … and this is what Ayn Rand sought to critique in her book.

I think she is right. You should not let others define who you are. They will ultimately define you wrong, not only because they are separate individuals and therefore incapable of totally knowing you, but also because an imperfect thing determining the values, truths, and ideas of another imperfect thing has an exponential factor of problems. That's like … wrong squared.

Dorian Gray, however, demonstrates that you cannot necessarily define yourself either. What we desire, what our nature compels us to do, and what we feel is right is not necessarily good, or just, or right. Often, it is neither right for ourselves or for those around us. The whole idea of Dorian Gray is a completely self-absorbed individual whose own soul becomes ugly and decrepit; his natural definition of his rights, wrongs, and values cause his ultimate destruction. On the other hand, if I feel a strong and very natural urge to punch someone, that is certainly right for me … but not for anyone who I decide to bash in the face.

So, you obviously can't let others define you. That much is given and accepted. But you can't really follow the Disney-fied ideal of "listening to your heart" because that will cause problems for you and others. Where then shall we turn for the definition of our ideals, goals, aspirations, truths, values, and character? How about the One who not only knows us, but created us? God can define what man cannot, and he will get it right … if we choose to listen.

Ode to (Un)Common Sense

My last audio post sounded far too much like the National Public Radio folks … I have a weird taste of … quasi-British in my mouth. Hopefully an ode will be a bit more fun.




Direct Link

A Country's Guilt

I was at debate last Monday, and an interesting thought was presented. While I don't know the actual opinion of the team, they argued for the purposes of the debate round that the United States should front the bill for a new prison facility in Afghanistan in order to prevent instances of torture and other abuses. Their rationale was basically that the United States should pay for past mistreatment.

This got me thinking, should a country have the whole of its citizens pay for the damages of some? Should later generations have to pay restitutions for the harms of their forbearers, such as slavery restitutions? In thinking it through, I would argue quite simply "no."

The basic reason is that forcing restitutions, economic or otherwise, harms those who are themselves innocent of the crime. When punishing an offence, punishing the entire population of the country will cause more harm than good. Effectively, two wrongs don't make a right.

Take for example Germany after World War I. The payments required of Germany to war ravaged countries soon caused economic conditions in Germany to spiral out of control. Money printed by the German government became more valuable as a fire starter than as a currency. These conditions created an environment that prompted desperation and indeed, a measure of support for nationalist parties such as Hitler and the Nazis.

Now, I'm not arguing that forcing a country to pay for past grievances will cause a Fascist dictator to start a world war, but rather that the standard in determining the correct extent of legal damages is lacking. Even within the United States legal system, the criteria for determining the correct extent of damages owed is nebulous at best. Any measurement of harm done to a human being in dollars and cents is bound to be difficult to ascertain … especially if you don't want to cause harm to the payer for being compelled to give too much.

Germany also provides an example of how it is false to assume the entire country is guilty or in support of its government's actions. There was a German resistance group that culminated in the 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler. Furthermore, citizens themselves were involved in resistance groups that did not support Hitler and expressed themselves non-violently. Because not every German citizen supported Hitler, voted for Hitler, or followed Hitler's orders in committing atrocities, to say that the whole of Germany was evil is false.

The government is admittedly supposed to represent the people … but if the government commits a wrong, should the people have to pay for it? Should the actions of a governmental individual compel all of society to pay for that individual's crimes? In the slavery question today, should later generations be forced to pay the offspring of those that were harmed? Multiple generations of people came to this country in the 1900s … should they also have to pay for the harms of those before them? I say that punishment should rest where punishment is due … not some vague notion of a country's guilt.

So, the impact of these examples is that forcing economic restitutions is often itself wrong. It is wrong to take undue amounts of money as reconciliatory measure because often there is not a good standard for determining to what extent damage is owed. Even more important, however, is the fact that forcing citizens to pay restitution lumps them all into a general "guilty" category that is not only untrue but also causes even worse feelings of resentment and discord. The bottom line is that two wrongs don't make a right.

Now, I have given thought to an alternative. As far as I can see, rather than continuing a cycle of harming one group to "fix" the harm of another, the solution is to forgive, forget, and move on. Direct damages should certainly be paid, but money isn't everything. Unfortunately, I doubt this whole "forgiveness" thing will catch on before there are a lot more payments demanded and received.