Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness




Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness: Thomas Jefferson’s holy triad. Democratic man’s three most sacred values, right?

Sometimes, when we want to say that something has great value, we call it sacred and we say that it is “more sacred than life itself.” But what is the relationship between Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Is there a hierarchy?

Some - for example Patrick Henry and the  New Hampshire’s motto - say that Liberty is more important than Life itself. Such professed idealism implies that it is your OWN life which you would be willing to sacrifice for freedom. But to most people, it makes a big difference whether the life to be sacrificed for a greater good is their own or somebody else’s.

Life is a poor example of a “sacred value,” even though linguistic convention often puts the words “life” and “sacred” together.


Life has never been sacred. In the laws of nature, the destruction of life in the service of other ends (if only to sustain or save other lives) has been the prime directive. Life has always been a means to other ends.

Furthermore, the VOLUME of life being destroyed has increased dramatically over the centuries, to the point where industrial civilization destroys more plant, animal and human life in one day than the tribal world did in a thousand years. Even two hundred years ago, the major historical battle of Yorktown took twenty-seven American lives - about half as many as were lost to “free” the freighter Mayaguez from the Cambodians at the end of the Vietnam war. The entire Napoleonic wars, which lasted fifteen years, cost the British Empire 6000 lives, which is about one day’s fatalities in the Indo-Pakistani conflict of the 1940s.

Even more important has been the change in attitude towards life. Two opposite trends have characterized modern society: On the one hand, modern medicine, scientific progress and the betterment of the human condition have in many cases admirably improved and lengthened human life. On the other hand, life has also been treated with increasing disrespect and inhumanity. Modern society creates bureaucracy, metropolises, mechanized warfare, crime, anonymity. The callousness with which life is treated in the modern world often exceeds the way it was treated in the past.

So, life is a bad example of a sacred value. Modern society holds other things more sacred. Unlike earlier civilizations, the most sacred realm today is not religion either. No. The true ends in themselves which most of us have learned never to question are material well-being, wealth and pleasure. We call this happiness, a euphemism for money.

Today, the vast majority of mankind “pursues happiness,” meaning $, or €, or ₤, or ₣, or fl, or some other denomination. To this end, all other values become means, including life itself. In their pursuit of happiness, corporations sacrifice other people’s lives by polluting the world, causing cancer and black lung. Gangs, drug lords and organized criminals also sacrifice other people’s lives in their pursuit of happiness. In Communist regimes, the pursuit of happiness takes other people’s lives through different means, including militarism and police state totalitarianism. Whenever the US and other powers go to war, they sacrifice thousands of lives for the protection of commerce. And then there is the Third World, which is now also engaged head over heels in the pursuit of happiness. There it takes the form of urbanization, industrialization, militarization, chronic war, revolution, terrorism, bloodshed, sometimes in the name of liberation of the oppressed, sometimes in the name of law and order, but in truth always with economic objectives.

So everyone pursues happiness. The assumption is that the current inhabitants of Calcutta, Sao Paolo or the South Bronx, because they pursue happiness, are therefore closer to it than were, say, the Pueblo or Sioux Indians hundred and fifty years ago, who were NOT pursuing happiness.

Are there any other sacred values which compete with money as today’s ultima ratio? Sex and love perhaps? How about science and technology? Or art and beauty? Truth? For a few deviants here and there - artists, philosophers , martyrs - one of these may occasionally be the ultimate value.

As far as sex and love are concerned, society has pretty much separated the two from each other. Sex is often a means to economic ends. I am not speaking of prostitution. I mean that marriage is largely an economic arrangement. Similarly, science and technology are rarely motivated by a pure thirst for knowledge and truth. They, too, are generally motivated by a desire to come up with a more efficient solution to a practical problem, in other words by economic incentives. As to freedom, most people now understand this to mean the freedom to take and to exploit, without accountability. To most people, freedom means a free lunch, getting without giving.

Conspicuously lacking in today’s dominant ideology is the notion of justice, particularly economic justice. Consider the fact that the average net worth of African-Americans is one twentieth (5%!) of that of white Americans. And the economic advantage of the one-percenters continues to grow. Not to mention the even more insane worldwide inequities. Yet, the catchwords “freedom” and “liberty” nearly always trump any talk of justice and equality, which is dismissed as prompted by envy, laziness or some other defect. leave comment here

© Tom Kando 2015

10 comments:

Steve said...

Good post, you said a lot.

Tom Kando said...

Thanks, Steve,
I appreciate your appreciation

drtaxsacto said...

Tom - one small comment. In the 18th century the three terms were intertwined - you could not pursue happiness without liberty. We've lost that notion and that is sad. Happiness was not about money but about individual choice.

Tom Kando said...

I appreciate Jon's very temperate comment. he and I often disagree, but he is always erudite and courteous, and his comments always have merit.

Gordon said...

Tom, I think your concern about economic justice is rooted in money. Money ends up as a means of negotiating resources when we have high population density and not everyone can have their own plot of land. In rural Minnesota, many people who own land live below the poverty line but seem happy being out of the rat race and away from the corruption that money brings. They do treasure their freedom to live this way. They still hang on to Jeffersonian democracy, but as Jefferson said in a letter to Madison; "I think the country will remain virtuous until there are no vacant lands,and when they pile upon one another in cities as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.

Tom Kando said...

Gordon is right in one respect: When I advocate more equality, I also speak as "homo economicus."

The issue of poverty/inequality is complex.

Also, Gordon (and Thomas Jefferson) connect corruption with urbanization and Europe. Hmm... That may have been so. Today, there is no evidence that “Europe” is particularly corrupt compared to other places...Nor is it more urban. At any rate, “urban” is becoming the world’s prevalent condition, so if Gordon and Jefferson are right, we need to work very hard at reducing corruption under this inescapable circumstance. I, too, like rural Minnesota, but unfortunately, it cannot serve as a realistic model for most of humanity.

Juanita said...

Dear Tom
I forwarded your blog on LLPH to a friend of mine (makes for a great discussion piece), and I thought you might be interested in reading her response (reprinted below). Of course, I’m interested in what your answer would be about the squirrel. Also, in a subsequent e-mail she also mentioned that you might appreciate the quotes from Adrienne Rich on capitalism and the consumer society, which appear in this article:
http://www.brainpickings.org/2015/05/19/adrienne-rich-arts-of-the-possible-capitalism/
Best,
Juanita

Hi, Juanita
I enjoyed the blog! WARNING—I’m sending you a few thoughts and a story that came to mind while reading it. First, I agree with Tom’s statement “Life has never been sacred..” but I don’t agree that “ life has also been treated with increasing disrespect.” I’m inclined to believe that we haven’t become much better or worse in this regard. I think our improving technology and resulting “Smaller world” has just amplified our basic good and bad nature’s impact on ourselves and our world. (ISIS is said to be using the same fear tactics that Genghis Khan used so successfully.)
When Tom states that “as far as sex and love are concerned, society has pretty much separated the two…” I can’t help but wonder when in history has there been more opportunity as well as practice of romantic love and sex than now—especially for women? If modern marriage is “largely an economic arrangement,” why has the divorce rate climbed to such high levels in the last 50 or so years?
I also take some issue with what I understand to be his assertion that the pursuit of happiness = pursuit of money (with his exception of a few “deviants.”) In my thinking, money is more a means of trying to gain some control over one’s environment and fate — more security, more power and then prestige and/or pleasure — a basic drive in the early Pueblo and Sioux Indians as much as in the inhabitants of Calcutta or the South Bronx.

But I suspect that Tom is still acting as the professor, tossing out broad, provocative statements to encourage some discussion (and see who is paying attention!)

While reading the blog, I was reminded of an incident that had just happened with a local squirrel. The morning after we returned from N C, I noticed a squirrel eating corn that was contained in the corn cob holder on the deck rail outside the kitchen window. The squirrel ate just briefly and suddenly dashed off as though frightened. Within a few minutes, another squirrel ran up to the corn from the right side of the deck, ate briefly and dashed off to the left, just as the previous squirrel had done. When, in just several minutes, another squirrel ran up to the corn from the right, ate briefly and dashed off to the left, I finally realized I was watching just one squirrel and went downstairs to see what happened after the squirrel left the deck. It was burying the corn in the backyard then climbing up onto the deck for more. After doing this I think five times, the squirrel came back and stayed long enough to finish the corn cob and the corn pieces around it.
Now I ask you, how would you judge this squirrel in its “pursuit of happiness?” Is it being very wise, thrifty and prudent in putting something away for future lean times? Or is it a greedy beast, grabbing all the corn- more than it could eat at one time- and preventing any other squirrels from having any?

I agree with Tom’s last paragraph about the extreme economic inequities in today’s world. That combined with today’s many political/religious extremists and the expected increase in extreme weather events/patterns from global warming, all happening in a “smaller world” makes me rather fearful for our future.

Well, my sunny thoughts for the day. But, I did warn you! Love, M G

Tom Kando said...

Hi Juanita:
Thanks for everything. I appreciate your friend’s astute comments. I don’t want to quibble too much. She is right that I “toss” these things out because it’s good to talk about them and to try to do so meaningfully...

Just one aspect of her comment: My juxtaposition of 18th century preindustrial people (E.g. Sioux/Pueblo) and people in 20th century monetized industrial society (South Bronx or wherever). I arbitrarily chose “South Bronx” because I remember driving there in the 1970s, when New York was at its worst. Smoldering apartment buildings, crack epidemic, 2,000 murders per year etc. It reminded me a bit of Budapest after the allied bombings of 1945. This in the richest country of the world. But aren’t the people of the South Bronx far richer than the Sioux ever were - $5,000 a year vs. whatever equivalent in species? Therefore also fifty times happier? Absurdity.

Peter Berger wrote “Pyramids of Sacrifice,” about “economic development,” industrialization, urbanization, capitalism, globalization and monetization of the pre-industrial world. Enough to make you puke.

As to the squirrel: Sure, I am all for thrift and saving for a rainy day. In another metaphor, I am the piglet who built a house of brick, not straw. So my life in retirement is comfortable.

Poet Adrienne Rich is right on about capitalism and “freedom”: The pimping of the word “freedom.” Indeed.
One bit of irony: the website ends with Visa and Mastercard logos/links, where we can send our money!

Sharon Darrow said...

All too true! During a recent experience in the Family Court with my daughter, a judge acting as a mediator told her "Family Court is not about justice, nor fairness, nor the welfare of the children. It's about knowing the rules of game and playing it well. And if your side doesn't know that, you will lost no matter whether or not you are telling the truth" Pretty disheartening, but right in line with this article.

Tom Kando said...

Disheartening indeed. I take it that Sharon is referring primarily to the very last part of my statement...

Post a Comment

Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!