Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
Neil's Ethical thoughts offer an a useful way to advocate change -- appeal to the desire for excitement and fame -- that doesn't require laying on "there are starving children in Africa" guilt. It's a wonderful argument, since liberal guilt is really unpleasant; lots of people, and I dare to say even a fair number of liberals, would rather simply avoid thinking about all the problems in the world that ought to be solved than be put in a situation where they feel guilty about them.
However, whether the motivation for liberal problem-solving is excitement or guilt, the conclusion in extremis is that we should dedicate our lives' work towards relieving the suffering of others. This quickly comes into conflict with the basic desire for comfort -- it's exceedingly difficult to swallow the pay cut that often comes along wit non-profit work, politcal work, or joining the Peace Corps; even if you can take the pay cut, you're often "putting your own life on hold" to pursue a larger cause; and if you have a children, a spouse, or even a long-term girlfriend or boyfriend, radically altering one's life is not always an easy sell. How then should we reconcile the desire for comfort with the need to excise guilt or experience excitement? How can liberals be in favor of aggresively tackling the problems of poverty and health care without dedicating themselves fully to the cause? How do you strike a balance?
Discuss.
