![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reading (In Search of the Common Good)
May. 10th, 2011 05:41 pmThis book took me a long time to read. Part of that was time I spent thinking and digesting what I had read. Part of it was that the writing was better taken in small doses. Every now and then the author would drop into pure academic-speak, which is dense and self important enough to put you off your lunch. I struggled to get through some chapters.
The author used the term reciprical altruism when he really meant transactions with two willing parties, which I found very irritating,. Deals are not altruism. Reciprical is not altruism. Altruism is not the same as self-interest, even enlightened self-interest.
I really didn't like how the author sidestepped the concept of valuing future good or good for future generations. He basically took the stand that since no one is omniscient, then no one really knows what future generations will want. It's impossible to know exactly so just give up on that concept. What an utter trash cop out. I think we can guess with reasonable certainty it's best for future generations not to have the world decimated by mass nuclear war. I also think it's reasonable to assume future generations don't want to be left with no resources other than mountains of our trash. Starting with this method it's possible to rule out considerable numbers of actions and outline regions of action where the future would vote on many issues.
For all the sociology in this book, the book's outlook is based on economics. It talks about incentives and motivations, but all the value judgements implied in progress are based on economics. This is a slanted view that overvalues capitalistic progress and undervalues all those things that the capital system undervalues. Soft values, like human interaction and fulfillment aren't considered.
In the end, Erasmus can't get anywhere. He is attached to the annonymity, flexibility, and freedom provided by the social fabric of modern city life. But within that context, the only way he can find to motivate people is through extreme government interference or materialism. The former, he can't embrace because of the lack of freedom. The latter, he can't embrace because he sees it's economically catastrophic to give everybody everything imaginable.
Overall, "In Search of the Common Good" was thought provoking, but I don't think a lot of people would find it worth the trouble.
15. Charles J. Erasmus "In Search of the Common Good"
The author used the term reciprical altruism when he really meant transactions with two willing parties, which I found very irritating,. Deals are not altruism. Reciprical is not altruism. Altruism is not the same as self-interest, even enlightened self-interest.
I really didn't like how the author sidestepped the concept of valuing future good or good for future generations. He basically took the stand that since no one is omniscient, then no one really knows what future generations will want. It's impossible to know exactly so just give up on that concept. What an utter trash cop out. I think we can guess with reasonable certainty it's best for future generations not to have the world decimated by mass nuclear war. I also think it's reasonable to assume future generations don't want to be left with no resources other than mountains of our trash. Starting with this method it's possible to rule out considerable numbers of actions and outline regions of action where the future would vote on many issues.
For all the sociology in this book, the book's outlook is based on economics. It talks about incentives and motivations, but all the value judgements implied in progress are based on economics. This is a slanted view that overvalues capitalistic progress and undervalues all those things that the capital system undervalues. Soft values, like human interaction and fulfillment aren't considered.
In the end, Erasmus can't get anywhere. He is attached to the annonymity, flexibility, and freedom provided by the social fabric of modern city life. But within that context, the only way he can find to motivate people is through extreme government interference or materialism. The former, he can't embrace because of the lack of freedom. The latter, he can't embrace because he sees it's economically catastrophic to give everybody everything imaginable.
Overall, "In Search of the Common Good" was thought provoking, but I don't think a lot of people would find it worth the trouble.
15. Charles J. Erasmus "In Search of the Common Good"
