Victimized Resentment
Why does a person choose a path in life that places themselves as a pitiful victim? We humans are always prone to a bit of self-pity. We never completely feel we get our due and the strange thing is that when we do get good things, we ignore the balancing aspect of all that and reinforce our view that we deserve to get more than we do, when, in fact, we may already be getting more than our due. That raises a rather profound issue for mankind, what are our unalienable rights? Obviously, the Declaration of Independence gives us three examples in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Let’s dissect that.
The broadest of these is the concept of life, which could be viewed so broadly as to allow any of us to define life as all the things we want. That is surely a path to victimization as the limitless wants aspect of human nature make it unlikely that many of us get everything our hearts desire. Bummer. So, let’s try to be more specific. I think it’s clear that life must certainly mean that we all deserve to be alive. That means, first and foremost, healthcare. We all deserve to have access to whatever solutions there are to prolong and improve the quality of life as much as is reasonably available. In the movie Elysium there is a body scanner technology that can fix anything that ails humans. It is available only to the elite class and specifically not to people who are not “citizens.” The poor little Hispanic girl that needs a treatment in order not to die is representative of all the non-citizens or perhaps immigrants that do not have the right to use the machine. The movie makes the machine’s capabilities seem like a free good that is simply withheld from non-citizens as a symbol of ruthless power.
The truth would likely be that there is a cost to that solution and who bears the cost is the key question. Big pharma has a moral obligation to save lives with medication that it has available and to whatever extent ailing people exist, regardless of cost. The cost then must be absorbed by someone. If the patient has the means that’s easy. If the patient doesn’t have the means, it’s equally easy if you buy the moral argument that access is an unalienable right. It must then be the obligation of the government. The moral dilemma turns out to be greatest in the cases where means exist, but the impact is disastrous to the ongoing livelihood of the person. Tough issues, but reconcilable if we share a fundamental morality of the right to life.
That last phrase surely invokes the most pernicious issue of this life right. Abortion is a moral minefield that hinges on the subtle science/morality of when life is really life. It also pits one life against another life as a balance which usually wants to favor the innocent and disfavor the imperfect (as anyone with an unwanted pregnancy can rightly or wrongly be adjudicated). Not just a tough issue, perhaps an impossible issue. Society will bounce back and forth on this one as long as people exist. There is sure to be a victim of justifiable standing one way or the other.
And then there is capital punishment. Another pernicious, but somewhat more easily defined issue. The question imbedded in this is simply whether people have the right to revenge (they would say justice) against people who commit heinous acts. Deterrence will get expressed in this case, but that quickly becomes a specious argument since deterrence is totally subjective and conditional. So, do people have a right to revenge versus other people’s right to life? This is where the conservative among us get confused and tripped up. If your views run to anti-abortion, it becomes hard to defend capital punishment. If your views run to pro-choice, you are less constrained, but probably need to favor life without societal redemption rather than mandated death.
Liberty is only a slightly less slippery slope. Liberty to do what? And to whom does liberty extend? Citizens surely, but to what extent are citizens empowered to restrict citizenship to others? Who sets the bar and writes the test? Libertarians want to be left to themselves, but they want access to the infrastructure that central government affords. Unless you are prepared to be a hermit on land to which you feel entitled (is anyone entitled exclusively to a limited piece of the earth that all must share for eternity?) you most certainly need to be a part of the broader society that requires governance to some degree. My guess is that we would need to debate and agree on a level of liberty that allows for personal freedom without the potential impedance of others’ liberties. Tough, but not impossible task.
I have heard electoral rallies espouse the notion that “they want to run our lives”, and yet those same groups would seek to legislate to run the lives of others. The only way to make sense of that is to realize that the operative word is not “run”, but rather “our”. This is simply about us versus them and that makes it all too human. It’s a bit idealistic to think that everyone will ever get to a place where the greater good is front and center. The goal should be to get the level of greater good to the highest sustainable level that the electorate can stand. And then recognize that the tolerance will vary and just keep the pressure on to maximize greater good under the current environment. It falls into the category of doing the best you are likely to do.
The pursuit of happiness is the easy one…but is it. Everyone deserves the right to be happy, right? When I was going through my first divorce, someone said to me, “What makes you think everyone has the right to be happy?” Wow, that floored me. There are some people (certainly many strict Catholics and probably any other religion that emphasizes guilt) that believe that the pursuit of happiness is tertiary to obligation. I can live with the notion that obligation is paramount, but I would always place the pursuit of happiness on a par with that.
So, drop the victimized hair shirt. Drop the resentment. No one is a victim that doesn’t choose to be a victim. Strength is about overcoming the constraints and limits of life as they are presented to us and continuing to pursue life, liberty and happiness for yourself, your family and all your brothers and sisters (and here’s hoping you define that last group as broadly as you possibly can).