One is the altruistic impulse (and particularly as it relates to the “pay-it-forward” concept, which is a chain letter of benefice, which in the past 3,500 years haven’t really hit many mail boxes). One good deed deserves another is a nice idea that I strongly encourage but doesn’t go a long way, because its obligation, and obligations are only fulfilled: they don’t boost our ego. We’re not really wired to pay good deeds forward.

Altruism is narcissistic, utterly selfish, and that’s what make it work. We give: we feel very good about ourselves. Endorphins squirt. Part of the pleasure is choosing the recipient: what would make us feel prouder of ourselves? One of the reasons there are so many Silver Donor lists on community functions and plaques on building is that there’s a terrific narcissitic tweak is being honored as a donor (and charities play this to the hilt, knowing the self-centered nature of altruism. Oddly, the most narcissitic (and pleasurable) forms of giving is to give anonymously, because then you get to add self-essness to your subconscious resume. True, some good acts are expiation of damaging acts, and some probably may be pay-it-forward, but these are more emotionally neutral acts. I’m not being cynical here: that we almost all share some extremely high degree of narcissism that is fed by good acts is magnificent.

Of the Occupiers (we have one), they are a highly inept but visible group, such as the earliest civil rights and Vietnam protesters, that are unable to articulate the actually reason they have to gather: that historically, the economic inequity as bipolar as we have today generally leads to some seriously bad shit. I don’t believe there’s ever been a utopia in world history because we’re collectively fucked up, but there sure have been a lot of dystopias, because we’re collectively fucked up.

And while it could be argued that its a strain to have two kids at Groton when your income is $500k, it could get even more of a strain if social pressure pushes the top marginal tax brackets back to Eisenhower’s levels (which is probably the most benign bad shit should a populist sentiment take hold).

But the one sentiment you express that I think you have to retreat from is this: “There is no such thing as good and bad, truly. There is only context. And context is subjective.” That’s the slope of moral relativism—well, actually it is moral relativism—and that slope is greasy beyond belief. The grease is that, as the same narcisstic impulse that drives so much of our behavior, is that YOU, individually, become the moral arbitrator of good or bad, and because it is subjective,
it becomes impossible to impose norms on a society, because any and every view is the correct view of good or bad…and those concepts of good or bad are not even a factor to begin with. (We haven’t even come near the terms “good and evil,” which add tang to the discussion, but also a closer definition). If you wish a barometer, rather than a subjective view, here is one: if an action, if it became a norm, would make society untenable, it is bad. If an action, if it became a norm, would be of benefit to society, that is good. Society has to determine good or bad, because our will is to make it subjective enough to validate all of our personal actions.

This can shift. At one time in world history, adultery was extremely bad, as it damaged or destroyed the cohesiveness of the tribe, which was necessary for survival. Today, adultery can be neutral (“hogamus higimus/men are polygamist/higamus hogamus/women monogamous”) or bad, should it damage other people, such as children: there is gray. But there are other actions that have always be beyond the pale, that are always bad: I simply can’t find a subjective view of rape. Nor can I find a subjective view of the near eradication of polio or the completely eradication of smallpox as arguably bad.

I can say, however, that a comment this long is inherently bad, and I should get my own fucking blog. Agreed.