The Least Good (606 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.2 on 8 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Chronic (View user info) at 2008-08-12 15:19:58 EDT
Intellectual or pseudo-intellectual conversations among intelligent or pseudo-intelligent people often lead to a broad theory about something called the "greater good." They talk about it all the time, even when the term doesn't actually get mentioned. It certainly appears to be a fairly expansive notion with diverse application. In practice, these people hypothetically extrapolate what they deem to be the "greater good" and use this as justification for why they are most correct. Generally, I get the sense that the so-called "greater good" tends to be in the context of the greatest good for the greatest number. Nash equilibriums and lowering crime rates and the like.
However, in 20 years and thousands of encounters with this principle, I've never heard anyone posit an opinion about what the opposite side of the spectrum would actually be. I'm fairly confident that it is not the "worst bad." The worst bad is undeniably the opposite of those words, but doesn't the "least good" really seem more appropriate? The least good isn't actually bad. In fact, it's good. It might be downright fan-fucking-tastic, but for the least number of people. It might even add up to a giant fucking super-good, but to who? How many of who? Business to business competition tends to be a "least good" kind of environment. The goal is to create an enormous amount of good for a relatively small group of people, usually at the expense of competitors trying to do the same thing as you. It certainly is not to serve the greater good. Wouldn't the greatest good be to make an Eldorado with a non-rust-out-and-fall-off bumper? That would be a greater good.
To me, it would seem justifiably un-crazy to think that the government is supposed to serve "the greater good." However, there is a caveat to be attached; That the government's implementation of the greatest good not be at the total expense of other inherently good things. Sure, sacrifices are made in all endeavors, what with the omelettes and cracked eggs and all that music. Some good things have to be lessened to make (hopefully) extra-great things. In light of all this, and other unmentioned reasons, I have to imagine that well implemented service of the greatest good has to have requirements. The power to command and conquer lesser and weaker things that are widely accepted as "good," should not have their fates placed in the hands of the one thing that we have somewhat carefully established as the environment in which we seem happy to reward the "least good." The "boutique goods" should not all end up as cracked eggs just because some rich asshole and his cronies deem their "least good" bullshit to be so super fucking great that all the flowers in between might as well get stomped out anyway.
I'm all about free markets and wall street whiz kids beating the system. However, at the end of the day, I can't pretend that big business is founded on principles of servicing the greatest goods, but rather, the shareholders. In fact, that's what they should be doing.
But not like this.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/08/11/bush.endangered.species.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
""This is the fox guarding the hen house. The interests of agencies will outweigh species protection interests," said Eric Glitzenstein, the attorney representing environmental groups in the lawsuit over the wildfire prevention regulations. "What they are talking about doing is eviscerating the Endangered Species Act."
User Reviews
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2009-03-04 14:42:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/03/endangered.species.act/index.html
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-08-13 05:47:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2008-08-12 23:13:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I wrote this stupidly fast. You have no idea.
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2008-08-12 20:55:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You're kind of all over the place here. Or maybe not, maybe you just went from the abstract "greater good" concept to the specific plight of the noble, endangered whatever too fast for me.
"To me, it would seem justifiably un-crazy to think that the government is supposed to serve "the greater good.""
In my opinion, it would seem rather crazy to suppose this, provided you mean "greater good" in sense of the global community, not within the population of a country itself. In general, what is in the best interest of one country is usually to the detrement of at least one other. For example, it would probably be the "greater good" for the US government to take all the taxes it collects from its citizens and distribute them to poor African nations. That would hurt the US, but probably help many more on the African continent. I'm assuming here that there are more people on the African continent than live in the US. However, although that action would be serving "the greater good", I would certainly not take up the position that the US government *should* take such an action.
+2 for a post that appears to have taken some thought and made me think
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-08-12 15:58:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Species come and go every day, just as they did before humans were human and just as they will after we've killed ourselves or left the planet. It is stupidly arrogant for humans to believe that they have some permanent effect on the planet or the climate. These things are simply bigger than humanity. To think that you can pass a law to limit the amount of solar radiation incident on the atmosphere or the rate of nuclear decay in the planet's core, or to prevent the thermodynamic certainty of all that energy finding its way to the surface of the planet is the pinnacle of foolishness.
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2008-08-12 15:40:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The endangered species act needs to be repealed completely. That would be the greatest good.
since that is unlikely to happen, I will settle for it being evicerated.... for now
Submitted by BobSandwich (user info) at 2008-08-12 15:24:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I really wish that the third paragraph would have went anywhere but government talk.
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2008-08-12 15:20:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
All right, let's not panic. I'll make the money back by selling one
of my livers. I can get by with one.
-- Homer Simpson
Homer vs. Patty and Selma