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.

Charity – A New Look

My granddaughter inspired me. She was working on a project that she really enjoyed and was being paid for it. What could be better?

What could be better is that when the job was done she was given a bonus. But she didn't feel that it was due her, so she asked me to act as an intermediary to an official of an organization in which I am active, in order that she might pass on the bonus without identifying herself. Of course I knew the donor, but from the perspective of the organization it was an anonymous gift.

That's what charity is. Not that it is simply an anonymous gift, but it is an offering made consciously and voluntarily, and without any expectation of reward. In fact it need not be anonymous, but it is voluntary.ⁱ

Most religions emphasize our responsibility for the needy; for the poor and the hungry – the sick and the homeless. And there are many who abjure organized religion but share the same feeling of responsibility. When our country was founded, there were many who had faith in the goodness of their fellows; they trusted human nature. So our Constitution made no reference to the needy. When they could not be aided by members of their own families, however, there were usually community organizations to help out. And the same is true today. There are many in the community who can be relied on to assist those requiring help – to share their good fortune with those less fortunate. And that includes many who are not well off – perhaps the recipients of aid themselves – people who are grateful for the help they have received from others and who recognize that some are even more needy than they.

It's a beautiful idea that there is a willingness to share what you have so that others can be as well off as you are, but, sadly, it isn't the norm. We'd like “human nature” to promote a spirit of compassion in us all, but it is more likely that our greater interest is in what could prove to be a benefit for ourselves: we might decry the evil of the “one percent” who are oppressing the remaining ninety-nine percent of us, but if offered the opportunity to be part of the “rich,” there are few who would refuse it.

A few hundred years ago, the liberals, who prevailed in the founding of our Republic, were optimistic, and they put their faith in human nature. That, however, is no longer the case; our leaders don't trust the average citizen to love his neighbor and provide for the needy. They believe, however, that help needs to be providedⁱⁱ and they know how to do it. They know what is best and they formulate plans to achieve it. Ideally that would be with the agreement and support of those whom they represent, but they will usuallyⁱⁱⁱ have their way irrespective of preferences of their constituents. It's easy to convince voters of the virtue of feeding and clothing the poor, of providing shelter for the homeless, of healing the sick. The government can certainly afford to do so. And it's especially easy when you don't have to pay for it yourself. (At least that's the impression they give.) It's the responsibility of the rich.^iv They can afford it and they're obligated to do so.

And our representatives are eager to promote that kind of attitude. It means votes. When they are identified as supporters of programs that help citizens, they've taken good will earned by payments from the government, and converted it into supporters for the next election. However they've also created the expectation that this new allocation is something to which the recipients are entitled. It's not charity from the government, rather it's something owed them.

But the handout is not a voluntary one. It's a mandate created by our representatives, to be paid for by the government. As such it becomes a right, and it is not charity. And it's one that, by and large, has the support of our citizens. But it's only right that the government give aid to those in need, isn't it?

Perhaps it is. After all our representatives approved it, and they did so with our consent. But in order to get our consent they misled many of us. They did so by telling us only part of the story: they made our generosity seem like a free ride for us. The government would take care of it. They didn't tell us, for example, that in order to fund the service of providing free health care for an individual it will cost us individually, and that our taxes could be lowered if we didn't do so. Nor nor did they inform us that our personal expenses might be significantly less if we didn't feed people we don't know, or clothe people we don't like. They didn't tell us that we, individually, through our governmental “charity,” are letting many of those out of work buy things that we'd think twice before getting for ourselves. That's not to say that there shouldn't be a mechanism designed to aid the needy, but people should understand that they – not some distant institution – are paying for it. They're giving charity according to the whims^v of their representatives. There might be a different attitude if you told someone his taxes would be $100 or $1,000 less^vi if this or that program were eliminated. But taxpayers can't say no without the risk of repercussions – though some take the risk.

Over the next few weeks I'd like to talk^vii a little about charity and taxes. Specifically I'd like to review some of the implications of the present system as well as to suggest some alternatives. There are needs that must be met; there are expectations among the needy; and there is a system in place that may not be accomplishing all we need.

Next episode: “For Worse Or For Better” – It's better to give than to receive. Or is it?

i      My granddaughter's generosity was one of the factors responsible for my making a significant gift to another organization. It wasn't anonymous, though I didn't advertise it. But it was voluntary.

  

ii     Although it is not always clear whose benefit is uppermost in their thinking – the needy, their constituents, or the politicians themselves.

iii    Not always, but usually. It may require that they misrepresent what they are doing but, as they say, all's fair in love and politics.

iv     “Rich” means anyone with more money than me.

v      Both in terms of what services the government provides at taxpayer expense, and who gets those services.

vi     That's a lot of lottery tickets or fast food, or whatever else is important to him. And if he wins the lottery he'll promise to give some of the winnings to charity. Whether lottery winners actually give some of the bounty to charity is a different issue.

vii    Actually write. No. Type.