The good of all is the best for me . . .
even if I am a billionaire.
The good of all is the best for me. I am convinced this is true, not only for me, but for everyone. Yet certainly some will argue against this idea. Why is it controversial? The good of all means just what it says — the good of all — not some, but every one of us. No matter who I am, whether I am rich or poor, black or white, male or female, the good of all includes me.
So what is the problem? The fact that “the good of all” is not readily accepted as a core value in our culture is directly connected to major divisions in our society. In this essay I will focus primarly on class divisions. While most people, as a general principle, will likely agree that society should affirm and work towards the good of all, this general agreement seems to break down quickly once we consider class differences, and how to work out the actual details of creating a society that works for everyone.
Some of the most prominent ideological battles of our time are between philosophies that promote the common good versus philosophies that emphasize looking out for oneself. Altruism vs selfishness, social welfare vs capitalism, and so forth. However, when we look closely at how we frame such debates, we can see that the notion of the common good often turns into promoting the benefit of the majority versus the benefit of the extreme upper classes. The good of all becomes“the 99% versus the 1%.”
For those who are financially successful, such notions as the “good of all” actually seem to mean social movements and policies which aim to diminish their position — for example through the redistribution of wealth. After all we have the historical example of communist philosophies centered around class warfare, which fomented revolutions where working classes fought to take down the feudal and capitalist upper classes. Mao Zedong — the leader of the Chinese Cultural Revolution — wrote about the “revolutionary struggle of the vast majority of people against the exploiting classes and their state structures,” which he termed a “People’s War.” How can it be to the benefit of those of who are in upper economic classes, or who aspire to be, if the “good of all” means an attempt by the rest of society to take away their money and privilege, or in some way inhibit their ability to succeed?
On the other side of the class divide, for people in less economically powerful positions in society, the carpenters, school teachers, musicians, drivers, social workers, artists, barbers, and so forth — those at “the top” can often seem to be the enemies of everyone else. For the majority of people, philosophies which promote the good of all may sound great in theory, but seem to be very difficult to implement or achieve in practice, because such ideas will be impeded and often vehemently opposed by those at the top, who have much of the power. Class divisions and class struggles are very real, and those in the upper classes appear to be the winners. From the point of “class warfare”, the only apparent solution for “lower” classes is to fight back.
Struggles throughout history, both within societies, as well as between nations, have been driven by competition for power and resources. The viewpoint is that since there are only limited resources and limited opportunities, there will always be winners and losers. This leads to the various forms of class warfare, as well as racial conflicts, struggles between the sexes, interethnic battles, and international wars. Such battles feature those currently in positions of power, dominance, or privilege, or those who want to be in such positions, trying to achieve, consolidate, and then maintain their position at the expense of others. There are winners and losers. And that’s the way it is. History has also shown that oppressed peoples who do achieve victories over their oppressors — in the name of the common good — most often simply become oppressors themselves. The idea of “the good of all” disappears in the midst of such conflicts.
In the light of all this history, a basic counter argument to promoting the good of all is that the idea is simply naive, impractical, and not possible in the real world. We’ll never get everyone to agree to work for the common good. People are naturally self-centered, and they are not interested in the benefit of others, whom they feel no direct connection with (or actively hate.) Why should I work for the good of all, if others do not do so in return, if others are only looking out for themselves? As we have seen, history seems to bear out the validity of this reality. People are self-centered. People look to take of themselves, and people in power try to consolidate and maintain their power at the expense of others.
Is there any way out of this unhappy cycle? Are we doomed to live in a world where some of us oppress others?
On a practical level there do appear to be many, many seemingly insurmountable obstacles to realizing the good of all. In the light of this, it certainly seems naive to consider that our global society might be able to so completely change directions, naive to consider that we as human beings can grow in our hearts and minds. But even if it is naive, the viability of our future on the planet may depend on it. My goal in this essay to challenge you, to challenge all of us to at least consider and discuss the idea. We may not know how we can implement it, but can we at least agree that by definition the good of all includes all of us? Not the good of some, not the 99% against the 1%, but the 100%.
At its heart this is a simple notion: by placing the good of all at the center of our social philosophy, we all win. A better world for everyone! Good for me, good for you, good for lower classes, good for upper classes, good for blacks, good for whites, good for men, good for women, good for society as whole. As individuals we all have to grow up and take responsibility for our lives, and the same is true for our society and the world we live in. Who else will? Are you happy with the way things are now? Most of us will probably say no. So what do we do about that? I do not believe that simply blaming and hating others, and then only looking out for ourselves, will make things better.
Of course, if you are extremely wealthy and powerful, you might say “yes,” that you are happy with your personal position in the world. Even so, you still have to live in this world, which has so much (ultimately unnecessary) turmoil, hatred, and environmental degradation. None of us can separate ourselves completely from the world we live in.
The crux of this matter, therefore, is how we understand the meaning of benefit. If the idea of benefit is understood solely in economic terms — having money and power — then it certainly seems true that not everyone can be powerful and wealthy, and there will always be winners and losers. In that paradigm, those in privileged positions don’t want to give up their privileges, and the less advantaged see the advantaged as their enemies. This leads to our current social battles of the “99% vs the 1%.“
From the perspective of the 99%, any efforts or programs which intend to benefit society as a whole should focus on helping the poor and middle classes. If benefit only means economic wealth, then people in the upper classes already have plenty of benefit; they do not need any more. They are the “greedy capitalists” and billionaires who control the world, exploit others, and who will never voluntarily give up their money and power. Society should help those who need it, not those who already have it.
But from the perspective of the 1%, this can readily imply an attempt to take away their personal earnings and property, like the communist revolutions of the 20th century. They fight back and argue that capitalism justly rewards the hard work and talent of those who contribute the most. They see people below them as being either lazy, or less-talented, and who are simply looking for an opportunity to steal the hard-earned rewards that they have earned.
However, I believe it is a misguided battle. Personal benefit cannot be defined solely by money and power, but by the true quality of ones personal life, and by the overall happiness and health of the world that we live in. Financial success can make some things a lot easier, but this is hardly the sole determiner of a good life. Even if you have a beautiful private estate somewhere, you cannot stay behind the walls all the time. An unhappy society is an unhappy society. A poisoned environment is a poisoned environment.
What if the whole planet could be healthier and happier? What if we took a “we” perspective. Beyond all our differences we share the same planet. Our economies are interconnected; the ecosystems we inhabit are interconnected, and the social fabrics of our live are interconnected.
To those of us in the upper classes, I argue that it is to our personal benefit to work for the good of all. Why not? We’ll still be wealthy, and we could be among the heroes of humankind! When society as a whole is improved, then it’s improved for everyone. When the world is a happier place to live in, it’s a better environment for everyone, even if we are super-wealthy. Why do we want money, if not to help us live a happy and fulfilling life?
To those of us in the “lower” and “middle” classes, I argue that it does not benefit us, or the world as a whole, to demonize the wealthy. Many wealthy people are so because they have contributed tremendously to society. Moreover, to demonize anyone denies them their basic humanity, and simply hardens their stance, turning the class differences into an even more pitched battle. Demonization of anyone is wrong; it hurts our collective chance to improve the world.
When we take the perspective of the 100%, things look very differently. Everyone is part of my family. I benefit by working towards a happier world for all. I benefit by holding the well-being of everyone in my heart.
The actual details of how we can create a more beautiful world for everyone are many and complex. Certainly it won’t be simple and easy. However, I argue that the path will be much clearer and easier, if we simply could begin with this foundational understanding: the good of all is the best for me.
Once we have that as basic understanding, then we can begin to work out the details. Ideas have tremendous power. If we do chose to align ourselves with this simple affirmation, I believe it will lead to unimaginable positive transformation in our global society which will be of benefit to everyone.
