All's For The Best

“All's for the best in this best of all possible worlds.” Dr. Pangloss may have thought so but in all likelihood no one else did (except, perhaps, Leibniz) then, and no one does now. Well, maybe some do, but they need to clean off their rose-colored glasses. Voltaire was satirizing Leibniz, but there are some who take it all seriously – at face value. Their worlds are, perhaps, ideal, but only a small minority would take that point of view.

There are two thoughts contained that are, at the very least, susceptible to dispute, and I'd like to devote a little time (and space) to them: “All's for the best,” and “this best of all possible worlds.” Starting with the second, there are many – perhaps most people – who would not accept the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds. The religious, for example, would certainly raise the argument that there is a “world to come” and it will surely be better than the one in which we live, while those who deny that concept would maintain that this is not the “the best of all possible worlds,” it is the only world – and the only possible one. We “only go around once,” and those who believe there will be a world after this one are only fooling themselves.

It's also worth remembering that the world in which we live at this moment (and it really is only a moment in view of the earth's longevity) is of no special consequence since it existed for billions of years before we were born and will likely last for quite a while after we are no longer here – unless Mankind destroys it. So even this world has had numerous incarnations.

Additionally, there are many who believe that there are millions or billions of other worlds besides ours – inhabited and uninhabited – and we are foolish to claim that ours is the only one. Perhaps it will take decades or centuries to start identifying other inhabited worlds, but sooner or later our scientists and engineers will probably do just that. Moreover we are arrogant to think that ours is superior to all the others. In view of the number they assume to exist, that would be unlikely.

More of a problem, however, is the first part of the statement: “All's for the best.” Pangloss obviously didn't read the morning paper. Candide (“Candide, ou l'Optimisme”) appeared in 1759 and early French newspapers (actually all newspapers) were published weekly, or even less frequently, and they were heavily censored by the ruling powers, so they would only have contained material that wouldn't threaten public peace or royal views. There wasn't the kind of easy availability of international news we have now, so he wouldn't have known what was happening elsewhere. Of course he probably wouldn't have cared anyway. His only concern was for the world in which he lived. There are different worlds for different people. (Even today we don't always hear about problems in the “Third World” or under tyrannies, because of lack of journalists in those locations or because those there are prohibited from reporting unfavorable stories.) But we do hear, on a daily basis, of the natural and man-made disasters so common to our existence. We learn of earthquakes and tsunamis, disease, poverty, and starvation, and, when permitted, of wars and murders, and other forms of mayhem. People seem to die before their time, or to be maimed or to suffer some other form of injustice. All this in “the best of all possible worlds.” But were those calamities to impact on us we obviously wouldn't view them quite so favorably.

We don't understand why everything happens. We certainly don't view all as for the best. Bad things have always happened to good people, and good things to bad. And although we seek an explanation, we wind up confused both about the events and the causation. Some consider the events to be random and without any explanation; others – the religious – often suggest that there is a divine explanation, but it is not for humans to comprehend. In neither case, however, is there a satisfactory answer to our question, and we're left with the need to make a decision about something we don't understand.

The extremes, in terms of response, are to turn inward or outward, although a wide variety of possibilities are available in between. We may choose to limit our concern to ourselves and our circle (family and friends) or we may suffer with all of the world's tragedies, and try to address them all. Or we may adopt an intermediate position and offer help when the problem involves our community or our people or some other category with which we identify.

But “There is no more neutrality in the world. You either have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem.” (Eldridge Cleaver [1935-1998]: Writer, political activist, and a leader of the Black Panther Party) That would suggest that if we don't suffer, identify, and work to solve all misfortune, we bear the guilt of being part of the problem involving most of them.

Sadly, however, we cannot solve all the world's problems. They are too numerous. Unfortunately all is not for the best. But we can't withdraw from it except by suicide, and that probably won't make things better, though there are some who choose that course. However they usually do so because of how they feel about themselves, not because of evil they see in the world.

Eldridge Cleaver, moreover, wasn't addressing all the world's problems, only those faced by blacks: it was primarily his circle that was of interest to him. And he devoted himself to the situation he faced. Perhaps that's a good starting point for us – though we should not view it as the end. Even if we cannot save the world, we can do our best to assist in some efforts. Perhaps as he did we should start with our own community (but we must not stop there). According to Deuteronomy, “The poor shall never cease from the land. … Thou shalt surely open they hand unto they poor and needy brother in they land [15:11]. “ But even if you feel that you cannot solve the problem, be aware of the remarks of Rabbi Tarfon (Pirkei Avot, 2:21): “It is not up to you to complete the task, but you are not free to desist from it.” And that obligation applies to us all, whether religious or not. Some believe care of the needy is the responsibility of the government through welfare and foreign aid. For the most part those who hold this view are those who favor large government and those who are non-religious (see Who Really Cares, by Arthur C. Brooks), but it is their obligation individually as well. None of us is free to desist from it. In the world in which we live, however we view it, we are all responsible for one another.

Especially if we don't consider this to be the “best of all possible worlds” we're obliged to make it better, and that is best accomplished by the “giving” of aid – preferably to many individuals and groups. How can this be done? How can we provide the help whose value Pangloss didn't recognize? What follow are a few (a very incomplete list of) suggestions which may be helpful. They're only a starting point, but include ways that even the least well-off can use to help improve this world.

Helping others – some examples (and they're only examples):

Money

Give

Convince others to give

March or run to earn money for a cause important to you or others

Time

Volunteer for a soup kitchen

Help an old lady cross the street. That's Boy Scout code for offering individual aid to         those you see need it. Such assistance may consist of just talking to them, helping them cook or do something else that offers them satisfaction. You'll be satisfied too.

Other ways to help

Support a cause, whether local or beyond – carry social or political signs, distribute leaflets, get signatures on petitions, attend meetings

Join volunteer groups

Write a letter to the editor or other advocacy of local, national, and international causes

Offer expertise in management or in delivery of other specific services (eg pro bono legal aid, plumbing, or other skill)

There's a lot that can be done, and we must not rely on others to do it. We're all obligated to make this at least one of the better of all possible worlds.