The choice between what is right and what is easy looms before us all, a perpetual challenge in the intricate tapestry of human existence. There is a pervasive tendency to simplify the world we inhabit, perhaps because the sheer complexity of human society's overall dynamic feels overwhelmingly vast. If we were to seek a single starting premise, it might well be that free will is an absolute. Despite our many differences and the varying degrees of freedom and liberty found across the globe, at some fundamental level, every individual is endowed with a sense of self, distinct and independent from the world in which they live.
Yet, even this premise is a simplification, for the self is immediately compromised by the myriad roles an individual assumes in the transitioning of society. At one moment, a son or daughter; the next, taking on the guise of a mother or father; and then, perhaps, a grandparent. These roles, while exclusive in their direct context, may be found simultaneously within an individual, alongside the identities of commuter, employee, consumer, and so forth. It is through this constant shifting that the singular sense of self multiplies into many senses of self. This dynamic, combined with the inherent human need for sustenance and survival through both cooperation and competition, inevitably fosters alliances and, in turn, gives rise to the pervasive sense of tribalism.
As society progresses in its ever-widening circles, we encounter cultural identities such as nationality, religion, minority demographics, political parties, families, corporations, and so forth. Yet, these sociological identities are ultimately comprised of individuals, and as such, they manifest the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the individuals they represent.
To evaluate the inner nature of humanity from a Biblical perspective, the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 1:29-32:
"They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice the
m."
From a psychological perspective, one need only consider the writings of Sigmund Freud. The human psyche, as he posited, is fundamentally split into three basic levels: the Id, or the pleasure principle; the Ego, or the reality principle (defined as what is ordinarily called problem-solving or thinking); and the Super-Ego, which constitutes the moral or judicial branch of the personality. This psychological framework finds echoes in the biblical understanding of human nature, as exemplified by the Apostle Paul's depiction of widespread wickedness.
When viewed from the collective, the sum of these individual psyches often manifests in society's primary impulse to satisfy a collective "pleasure principle," albeit often cloaked in rationalized ideologies. To achieve this collective gratification, an ideology is often crafted to justify the action and thereby satisfy what might be seen as the collective "inner-child"—the primal desires. For instance, a societal desire for economic security might lead to protectionist trade policies, rationalized as safeguarding national interests, even if they hinder global cooperation.
This explains why we might hear justifications like "torture if it saves lives." Hereby, the conscience is justified in believing it has served the greater good, the ego is satisfied that its course of action is logical in obtaining its end through logical means, and the Id is satisfied that it has punished its perceived oppressor.
Now, in fairness, while my criticism was made in regards to the political Right, it is equally true of the Left. I, for one, do not consider myself immune from the follies of mankind. There are many things I have done that I regret, and in this, I would only justify with the knowledge that no one holds a monopoly on truth, superior virtue, or the concept of right and wrong – including myself.
This, at last, brings me to the question of Happiness. As a utilitarian, I hold that good is what promotes the most happiness for society at large, while evil is what promotes misery and despair. In reference to this, I have been challenged on my support of Freud, with the general criticism that his writings are perverse. To this I agree, because the human mind is perverse (meaning, it is driven by deep, often irrational, and self-serving desires). Hence the conclusion: how can good promote happiness if humanity is perverse by nature?
This is a good question; however, it is based on a misunderstanding of happiness. From a Platonic sense, there exists both the illusion of happiness and the reality of happiness. For instance, while smoking might provide a temporary sense of satisfaction, in the long run, it is harmful to the individual, both from a health perspective and financially. Hence, the conclusion that smoking does not, in fact, promote true happiness. While our inherent inclinations may indeed be "perverse" in the Freudian sense, true happiness, as distinct from fleeting pleasure, is not merely the absence of these perversions but rather the result of their management and transcendence through reason, empathy, and collective effort. It's about recognizing these innate drives and consciously choosing paths that lead to long-term well-being for the many, rather than succumbing to immediate, self-serving gratification.
From a more pragmatic sense, this rationale could be said to justify war if it is in defense of the weak and the innocent. The problem with this rationale is that it often fails to calculate the perpetual cycle of violence facilitated by the state of war. Even if all goes well in our current hypothetical war with Iraq, and we leave the region with a stable government, will this stop the next war? The United States has been in a state of war almost every 20 years since its inception. No victory has changed that, so it is safe to assume by our track record that we will soon enter another war. To this end, diplomacy serves the greater happiness more effectively than war.
The critical issues facing our nation today—the War on Terror, immigration reform, poverty, medical insurance, the prominence of the US dollar in global finance (dollar hegemony), a skyrocketing national deficit, crime, and our education system—are not merely policy debates, but profound tests of our collective will to choose what is right over what is easy. While the choice between what is "right" and what is "easy" appears clear, defining "right" in a complex, pluralistic society often presents its own set of challenges, requiring open dialogue and a commitment to collective rather than self-serving interpretations. These challenges demand that we, as a society, transcend tribalism and short-sighted justifications, embracing the inherent complexity of human interaction to forge solutions that genuinely foster stability and the greatest happiness for all.
