However, given a political climate that facilitates free thought and honest intellectual inquiry,
great advances in knowledge can be made by actually embracing certain forms of "authority."
A good example involves modern computer technology. Only by building on, or embracing,
certain well-established laws of physics were engineers able to develop silicon-based
semi-conductor technology. Although new biotechnology research suggests that organic,
biochemical processors will replace artificial semi-conductors as the computers of the future, it
would be inappropriate to characterize this leap in knowledge as a rejection of authority.
In sum, to the extent that political authority imposes artificial constraints on knowledge, I
agree that advances in knowledge might require rejection of authority. Otherwise, in my
observation advances in knowledge more typically embrace and build on authoritative
scientific principles and laws, and do not require the rejection of any type of authority.
Issue 81
"International relations can never be completely harmonious because many cultures do not
share the same values."
Does a nation’s greatness lie in the general welfare of its people rather than in the
achievements of its artists, rulers, and scientists, as the speaker claims? I find this claim
problematic in two respects. First, it fails to define "general welfare." Second, it assumes that
the sorts of achievements that the speaker cites have little to do with a nation’s general
welfare--when in fact they have everything to do with it.
At first blush the speaker’s claim might appear to have considerable merit. After all, the
overriding imperative for any democratic state is to enhance the general welfare of its citizenry.Yet the speaker fails to provide a clear litmus test for measuring that welfare. When we speak
of "promoting the general welfare," the following aims come to mind: public health and safety,
security against military invasions, individual autonomy and freedom, cultural richness, and
overall comfort--that is, a high standard of living. Curiously, it is our scientists, artists, and
political leaders-----or so-called "rulers" who by way of their achievements bring these aims
into fruition. Thus, in order to determine what makes a nation great it is necessary to examine
the different sorts of individual achievements that ostensibly promote these aims.
Few would disagree that many scientific achievements serve to enhance a nation’s general
89
welfare. Advances in the health sciences have enhanced our physical well-being, comfort, and
life span. Advances in technology have enabled us to travel to more places, communicate with
more people from different walks of life, and learn about the world from our desktops.
Advances in physics and engineering make our abodes and other buildings safer, and enable
us to travel to more places, and to travel to more distant places, with greater safety and speed.
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.