to buttons

Here's a question: Is it better to be truly independent and ONLY be responsible for yourself (as an unwed, non-parent), or should we take other people's feelings and wants and needs into consideration to the point where we're deterred from what's best for ourselves, or deterred from our own impulses to satisfy ourselves?

Coming from the midwest, I was raised (I think) to be considerate of others, to keep my mouth shut if I didn't have anything nice to say, and to always say please and thank you. These lessons are common in most of the US and they seem nice and simple and harmless enough. They encompass "values", and are anti-confrontational (that might not be a word). They highlight good Christian beliefs (although we could have just as easily adopted the "eye-for-an-eye" doctrine, if we're talking about molding our lives around the good book), and wholesomeness. These lessons make for good boys and girls, right? And isn't the world a better place when people are good and nice and kind; wouldn't there be less wars, less fighting? If only we could get everyone to be considerate, say please and thank you, and for Christ's sake not ever say anything to offend anyone.

I wonder though, what behavior really comes from such good intentions? Is it kindness, or underhanded manipulation in order to trick someone into giving them what you want, because to say so would be inappropriate or uncomfortable? Is it consideration, or is it an extreme selfishness tucked deep down b/c it isn't right to want things for yourself? Is it reponsibility or an impulse to rebel and be reckless because the weight of feigned ownership is mind numbingly crushing?

I've struggled with what I first perceived as "rudeness" and now see as honesty; it was difficult seeing people act in ways only to satisfy themselves, which I thought was bad, but now I see is liberating. I've also struggled with feelings of complete disconnectedness, not being responsible for other people's feelings is lonesome, too. And maybe that is where the impulse derives from. Maybe "politeness" isn't about doing better to others, or making the world a better place. Maybe it's just about feeling less alone.

If that's the case, then maybe we should teach ourselves to be honest about the way that we feel instead of hiding everything inside. Maybe, we should give people the freedom to look out for who they choose, instead of burdening them with the task of looking out for everybody. Maybe the path to creating good boys and girls is to educate them as thoroughly and honestly as we can. And maybe we should give up the ghost of treating everyone and everything the same. Maybe we should treat people on an individual basis, based on the reality that we all have different abilities and know that to ostracize one group for only one reason could be just as bad as overcompensating another group for only one reason.

Maybe there is a way to celebrate individuality without corraling people into a sense of sameness, by not dictating how they should behave, letting them choose for themselves...and maybe (gasp!) the eye-for-an-eye doctrine isn't such a bad idea for people who actively choose to hurt others.


In english-translated ancient Greek manuscripts, the word "virture" comes up quite a lot. They thought "virtue" was the highest and best quality to shoot for. We see virtue as a religious term that means piety, service and without selfishness. We were mistaken in what the word originally meant. It wasn't a synonym for spotless perfection and avoiding all mistakes. It simply meant potential. The most wise philosophers thought the only thing that mattered was reaching your potential.