I have previously argued that there is no moral obligation for government to help individuals, adn that individuals cannot discharge their moral obligations through governmental group efforts. What about individual obligations? Can we change society through individual efforts?
I feel personally an obligation to help those who are suffering insofar as I can. I distinguish suffering experienced from external problems like crime, weather, and war from self-inflicted self-destruction such as from substance abuse. Unfortunately, so much siffering is self-inflicted in dropping out of school, having unprotected intercourse and unplanned pregnancies, forming violent adn unstable relationships. Can individuals change such conditions?
I certainly do not believe the government can. The net result of social 'assistance' programs is to subsidize and enable failure and poor choices. But, while we can help individuals in difficult circumsatnces, I do not see how individuals can substantially change the large volume of poor choices and acts. We can relieve some of the suffering of these choices, but unless the choices and conditions leading to the suffering are changed, we are treating symptoms and not problems.
My next question then, is can we change the problems? My sad and troubled answer is I think not. Intelligence is differentially distributed. Intelligence in turn is projected socially as greater learning ability and education, which in turn leads to higher income. Low intelligence is thus strongly associated with poverty and limited education. These conditions in turn are the earth within which poor choices are made and their social consequences realized.
There is no way to change raw intelligence any more than there is to make society taller or more athletic. We can make as many programs and individual interventions as we like, and they will not change the intrinsic physical abilities of a person. They may be given athletic training and opportunities, but that will not turn short people into basketball players or small people into football players. Those with limited physical ability tend to exercise less, get fatter and suffer the consequences of their abilities as reflected in their choices.
We can, as a nation, offer schooling to all, and should. We can offer low income subsidization of education through loans and grants. But we cannot make people use those educational opportunities and certainly cannot make them able to use them. In the end, I do nto see how we can alter the physical and intellectual realities underlying social behavior. That being the case, it is pointless to continue to make expensive, complex eforts to change that which is unchangeable.
Jesus said we will have the poor always with us. He was right. I want to help those suffering, but I cannot help so much of sufferng that is self-inflicted or the consequence of characteristics no one can change.
Ted
I feel personally an obligation to help those who are suffering insofar as I can. I distinguish suffering experienced from external problems like crime, weather, and war from self-inflicted self-destruction such as from substance abuse. Unfortunately, so much siffering is self-inflicted in dropping out of school, having unprotected intercourse and unplanned pregnancies, forming violent adn unstable relationships. Can individuals change such conditions?
I certainly do not believe the government can. The net result of social 'assistance' programs is to subsidize and enable failure and poor choices. But, while we can help individuals in difficult circumsatnces, I do not see how individuals can substantially change the large volume of poor choices and acts. We can relieve some of the suffering of these choices, but unless the choices and conditions leading to the suffering are changed, we are treating symptoms and not problems.
My next question then, is can we change the problems? My sad and troubled answer is I think not. Intelligence is differentially distributed. Intelligence in turn is projected socially as greater learning ability and education, which in turn leads to higher income. Low intelligence is thus strongly associated with poverty and limited education. These conditions in turn are the earth within which poor choices are made and their social consequences realized.
There is no way to change raw intelligence any more than there is to make society taller or more athletic. We can make as many programs and individual interventions as we like, and they will not change the intrinsic physical abilities of a person. They may be given athletic training and opportunities, but that will not turn short people into basketball players or small people into football players. Those with limited physical ability tend to exercise less, get fatter and suffer the consequences of their abilities as reflected in their choices.
We can, as a nation, offer schooling to all, and should. We can offer low income subsidization of education through loans and grants. But we cannot make people use those educational opportunities and certainly cannot make them able to use them. In the end, I do nto see how we can alter the physical and intellectual realities underlying social behavior. That being the case, it is pointless to continue to make expensive, complex eforts to change that which is unchangeable.
Jesus said we will have the poor always with us. He was right. I want to help those suffering, but I cannot help so much of sufferng that is self-inflicted or the consequence of characteristics no one can change.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment