Artistic achievement is also needed to make a nation a better place for humans overall. Art
provides inspiration, lifts the human spirit, and incites our creativity and imagination, all of
which spur us on to greater accomplishments and help us appreciate our own humanity. Yet
the achievements of scientists and artists, while integral, do not suffice to ensure the welfare of
a nation’s citizens. In order to survive, let alone be great, a nation must be able to defend its
borders and to live peaceably with other nations. Thus the military and diplomatic
accomplishments of a nation’s leaders provide an integral contribution to the general welfare of
any nation’s populace.
Notwithstanding the evidence that, in the aggregate, individual achievements of the sorts
listed above are what promote a nation’s general welfare, we should be careful not to hastily
assume that a nation is necessarily great merely by virtue of the achievements of individual
citizens. Once having secured the safety and security of its citizens, political rulers must not
exploit or oppress those citizens. Also, the populace must embrace and learn to appreciate
artistic accomplishment, and to use rather than misuse or abuse scientific knowledge. Of
particular concern are the many ways in which scientific achievements have served to diminish
our quality of life, thereby impeding the general welfare. It is through scientific "achievements"
that chemicals in our food, water, and air increase the incidence and variety of cancers; that
our very existence as a species is jeopardized by the threat of nuclear warfare; and that
greenhouse gases which deplete our ozone layer and heat the Earth’s atmosphere threaten
civilization itself.
In sum, in asserting that general welfare--and neither the scientific, artistic, nor political
achievements of individuals--provides the yardstick for measuring a nation’s greatness, the
speaker misses the point that general welfare is the end product of individual achievements.
Besides, achievements of artists, scientists, and political leaders rarely inure only to one
particular nation. Rather, these achievements benefit people the world over.
Accordingly, by way of these achievements the world, not just one nation, grows in its
greatness.
Issue 82
"People who pursue their own intellectual interests for purely personal reasons are more likely
to benefit the rest of the world than are people who try to act for the public good."
I strongly agree with the speaker’s threshold claim that international relations can never be
completely harmonious. To assert otherwise would be Pollyannaish and would fly in the face of
human history--which is largely a story of power struggles, war, and general discord between
nations and cultures. However, the speaker’s rationale, although appealing and not without
merit, is inadequate to explain why total accord among all nations is impossible.
Supporting the speaker’s claim is the fact that each culture has its own distinct ethos--
consisting of its core values, principles, and spirit which defines and distinguishes the culture.90
And I agree that the failure of one culture to understand the unique ethos of another is what
often lies at the root of discord between nations and cultures. An apt current-day illustration of
this point involves a certain American Indian tribe in Washington State, and its traditional
custom of whale hunting. Environmentalists denounce the practice as unnecessary
endangerment of a species. However, underlying this custom is a centuries-old spiritual belief
that ceremonial whale-hunting is sacrificial ritual honoring Nature, and an even more
fundamental Native American ethos, characterized by a far greater respect for animals and for
Nature than the ethos of white Americans.
The sort of unfair judgment exemplified by certain white Americans’ denunciation of Native
American customs and practices is what sociologists term "ethnocentricity"-- reference to
one’s own cultural ethos as a standard for judging the values and actions of other people.
History informs us all too well that ethnocentricity leads inexorably to disharmony. Virtually all
wars are rooted in religious ethnocentricity. Political ethnocentricity results in
imperialism--assimilation of any and all peoples with complete disregard or respect for ethos.
Understandable resistance to British imperialism during the 19th Century resulted in the
oppression and demise of many indigenous peoples of Africa and Indonesia. And
ethnocentricity on a societal level can lead to mass persecution, as demonstrated by the
legions of citizens and soldiers brainwashed by the Nazis into believing that the Jewish race
posed some sort of threat to German society and to the Arian race.
Thus the speaker’s contention that harmonious international relations are impossible
because of conflicting cultural values finds ample support from history. Yet, as compelling as
this argument might be, it nevertheless suffers from two notable deficiencies. First, in spite of
their differences the world’s mainstream cultures all share certain fundamental
tenets--particularly about the dignity of human life and that they all agree upon these tenets,
at least tacitly. And people should judge other cultures against such universal standards.
Otherwise, the end result is that we find ourselves acquiescing in or even sanctioning war and
other such atrocities. Since all cultures share a universal ethos the speaker’s rationale seems
inadequate. Discord occurs not only as a result of an ethos clash but also upon violation of the
universal ethos.
A second problem with the speaker’s rationale is that it overlooks the fact that we can find
considerable discord within almost every culture. On a microcosmic scale we all observe
so-caUed infighting among members of the same church congregations, political factions, and
so forth. On a larger scale infighting is all too evident--from overt gang warfare and civil war to
covert corporate espionage and political back-stabbing. Thus even if all cultures were to share
the same ethos the promise of complete harmony would still be an illusory one. In short,
contentiousness seems to be part of human nature.
To sum up, I agree with the speaker that complete harmony among nations is unrealistic, but
not just because of conflicting cultural values; it runs contrary to human nature. Yet, the outlook
for international relations is not necessarily so grim. An enlightened understanding of the ethos
of other cultures, and of our own cultural bias, can foster a universal ethos of respect for
human dignity and life. The end result would be to stem, or at least minimize, discord among
nations and cultures.Issue 83
91
"Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting
old ideas together in new ways."
Are people who make the greatest contributions to society those who pursue their personal
intellectual interests, as the speaker asserts? Or are they the ones who focus instead on areas
that are most likely to benefit society? I strongly agree with the speaker, for three reasons.
First of all, by human nature we are motivated to pursue activities in which we excel. To
compel people to focus their intellectual interests only on certain areas would be to force many
to waste their true talents. For example, imagine relegating today’s preeminent astrophysicist
Stephen Hawking to researching the effectiveness of affirmative-action legislation in reducing
workplace discrimination. Admittedly, this example borders on hyperbole. Yet the aggregate
effect of realistic cases would be to waste the intellectual talents of our world’s scholars and
researchers.
Secondly, it is unusual avenues of personal interest that most often lead to the greatest
contributions to society. Intellectual and scientific inquiry that breaks no new ground amount to
wasted time, talent, and other resources. History is laden with quirky claims of scholars and
researchers that turned out stunningly significant--that the sun lies at the center of our universe,
that time and space are relative concepts, that matter consists of discrete particles, that
humans evolved from other life forms, to name a few. One current area of unusual research is
terraforrning---creating biological life and a habitable atmosphere where none existed before.
This unusual research area does not immediately address society’s pressing social problems.
Yet in the longer term it might be necessary to colonize other planets in order to ensure the
survival of the human race; and after all, what could be a more significant contribution to
society than preventing its extinction?
Thirdly, to adopt a view that runs contrary to the speaker’s position would be to sanction
certain intellectual pursuits while proscribing others which smacks of thought control and
political oppression. It is dangerous to afford ultimate decision-making power about what
intellectual pursuits are worthwhile to a handful of regulators, legislators, or elitists, since they
bring to bear their own quirky notions about what is worthwhile, and since they are notoriously
susceptible to influence-peddling which renders them untrustworthy in any event. Besides,
history informs us well of the danger inherent in setting official research priorities. A telling
modern example involves the Soviet government’s attempts during the 1920s to not only
control the direction and the goals of its scientists’ research but also to distort the outcome of
that research----ostensibly for the greatest good of the greatest number of people.