Good intentions and the path to Hell
“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge.”
— Daniel J. Boorstin
From the french word solidarité, solidarity means “a communion of interests and responsibilities,” which in practice represents the unifying goals shared between groups, classes and individuals. Solidarity represents the ties that bind members of society together under a common social identity.
This concept originates from an observation found in human societies, and the animal kingdom, as a survival mechanism based on cooperation. Supportive mutual aid decreases the likelihood of population loss, and acts as a safety net when individuals face adverse conditions. This is how insurance works, where group contributions provide a pool of resources that participants access in times of need.
Like all things in this world, especially insurance, nothing is perfect.
Solidarity has a dark side.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Egalitarianism is a political philosophy that prioritizes social equity for all people, and asserts that all humans have the same fundamental worth or moral status. This philosophy is the cornerstone of many social movements including feminism, civil rights, international human rights, racial equality, communism and others.
Each variant uses a similar vocabulary, including rights, equity, equality, etc., because the core philosophy holds a claim to have the highest and most moral intentions. Thus, egalitarianism as a social movement can be described as the solidary of good intentions.
The dark side of solidarity, good intentions, has infected the minds of the masses who either refuse to, or are unable to, differentiate good intentions from good outcomes.
Recall the catch-phrases from 2021.
For the greater good. Do the right thing.
Watch below Toronto Mayor, Olivia Chow, encourage residents to get their new updated shot after rolling up her sleeve “I think it’s 5.. 6.. or something like that.”
She later says the following.
“Toronto is a caring city. Let's show it.” — Mayor Olivia Chow
Her sloppy statements conveniently display an appeal to act solely on good intentions.
Propaganda cleverly commandeers egalitarianism, because the shame of not having good intentions — along with other psychological factors — is a powerful persuasive force. The urge to socially appear good is an effective political tool, complimenting coercion and gas-lighting, because self-righteousness is the self-soothing carrot that accompanies the shameful stick of not caring enough.
For solidarity to pivot from being a problem to a solution, egalitarianism must be abandoned in Hell, where it belongs. If solidary of good intentions is the road to Hell, then the narrow path out would be solidary of good works. To understand good works, and how it differs from intention, an uncomfortable admission is required, which fittingly challenges the foundation of the egalitarianism philosophy.
The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine', and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society.
From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.
— Rousseau (1754)1
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778) was a Genevan philosopher who influenced the Enlightenment, French Revolution and modern social movements. In Discourse on Equality, he argues that private property is the cause of inequality, and in his work The Social Contract he outlines the basis for a moral political order. His ideas derive from a hypothesis that humans are naturally good, but the influences of art and science cause a corrupting moral degradation of mankind.
Rousseau’s ideas appear throughout radical liberal theories, which assert that capitalism, religion, and even the family unit, are contaminants that contribute to the corruption of the naturally good human. Liberating society from its impure bindings is morally justified, and the good intention absolves any subsequent abhorrent act.
Solidarity in this instance is a cooperative deconstruction of established systems.
But here comes the uncomfortable admission.
Implying the path of least resistance is cruelty and wickedness, humans are more than likely not naturally good and obtain social cooperation by masquerading themselves through a “socially good” outward appearance. This is a potential factor in the banality of evil described by Hannah Arendt2 in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963)3. Banality is a condition of being trivial, obvious or commonplace, which Arendt used to describe the dispassion Adolf Eichmann4 displayed during his trial, where he claimed he was “just doing his job.”
Eichmann was a major organizer of the Holocaust, and during his trial he argued that his actions violated no law under the Third Reich. Arendt noted that Eichmann was unable to think for himself based on his repeated use of stock phrases, clichés, officialese and euphemisms, which demonstrated a worldview detached from reality.
Before his trial, Israel sent six psychologists to examine Eichmann, but found no evidence of mental illness or personality disorder, and in fact stated his habits and attitudes were more “normal” than the average person.
Half a dozen psychiatrists had certified him as "normal" - "More normal, at any rate, than I am after having examined him," one of them was said to have exclaimed, while another had found that his whole psychological outlook, his attitude toward his wife and children, mother and father, brothers, sisters, and friends, was "not only normal but most desirable" - and finally the minister who had paid regular visits to him in prison after the Supreme Court had finished hearing his appeal reassured everybody by declaring Eichmann to be “a man with very positive ideas.” — H. Arendt (1963), p.202
His blind dedication was attributed to his desire to belong.
“I sensed I would have to live a leaderless and difficult individual life, I would receive no directives from anybody, no orders and commands would any longer be issued to me, no pertinent ordinances would be there to consult—in brief, a life never known before lay ahead of me.” — Adolf Eichmann (H. Arendt (1963), p.208)
This coincides with the Milgram experiment, demonstrating on average that 60%+ of participants would administer a fatal voltage if instructed to by an authority figure.
The Rousseau philosophy, of inherently good humans who need to cooperatively deconstruct corrupting social influences, has disastrous consequences if put into practice by a race of beings who naturally act out of self-interest, and hide their wickedness through false visages and deceptive language.
Good intentions are meaningless without good works.
If the path of least resistance leans to evil, and humans have a natural tendency for wickedness, then it should be no surprise that good outcomes require significant effort and suffering. Simply wanting something to be good, or following what you believe to be good, is not sufficient. Good outcomes are not trivial and banal.
Good outcomes must be paid for — in-full — with sacrifice and hard work.
“Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works.”
Solidarity is both a problem and a solution.
As a problem, solidary of good intentions produces a society that imposes its idealistic will to reshape nature, but as a solution, solidary of good works creates a functioning and mutually beneficial system through the constructive cooperation between individuals. For society to renew itself and thrive, it must sacrifice the good intentions of the egalitarian philosophies, which easily lend aid to the political pursuits of power, and seek out good works through earned prosperity in the real-world.
Solidarity of good works does not need a philosopher to shape the “thoughtless masses.”
In nature and the market economy, multiple parties interact, without ideological unity, to cooperate and fulfill mutual needs in accordance with basic economic laws.
Consider farming, where livestock are raised from cultivated land, and sold to the market.
Wool, a farm product, is purchased, refined into cloth and sold back to the market.
A seamstress purchases cloth, crafts it into clothing and sells it back to the market.
Economic exchange occurs naturally and without a central authority. There is no need for external inspiration, coordination or bureaucracy. Arguably, the ideologies that seek to control economic activity hinder it the most.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a good intention, but it must have a functioning solution based in reality. Suppose an individual or group has the good intention of improving environmental conditions. Is the correct course of action to mandate new economic behaviour, offer a novel good or service to influence it, or cover buildings in paint and glue yourself to the road?
This is partially why modern environmentalism manifests itself as madness, because it offers no real good or service that adds value to existing cooperative systems.
What if there was a solution that could reduce nitrogen fertilizer use to 15%, minimize phosphorous fertilizer to near zero, provide an agricultural producer with cost savings and result in comparable yields?
What if this solution could be made from household yard waste and reduce landfill use?
What if this solution increased the amount of carbon sequestered in the soil, the nitrogen fixated, increased biological diversity, and reduced soil respiration of carbon dioxide?
This solution reduces cost for agricultural producers by manufacturing a good from waste.
But does such solution exist?
One would think if it did (and it does, at least provisionally), those with good intentions would put in the hard work to make that solution a reality. But such solution cannot be imposed and spoken into existence through dictate, because it requires vetting, trials, testing and cooperation between many parties to prove its value in practice.
No amount of good intentions can replace that necessary hard work and sacrifice.
I for one am interested to learn more and pay with hard work.
For our shared goals of prosperity,
Put aside the good intentions and put in the good work.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1754), “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, part two”, The Basic Political Writings, Hackett, p.64
Hannah Arendt (Oct. 14 1906 – Dec. 4 1975) was a German-American historian and political philosopher.
Adolf Eichmann (Mar. 19, 1906 - Jun. 1, 1962) was a German-Austrian official of the Nazi Party, an officer of the SS, and one of the major organizers of the Holocaust.
Hannah Arendt (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.
Well thought out and excellent reasoning. I really enjoyed this and agree wholeheartedly.
This has a number of very good parts. The problem is this. In my considered view (as an independent economics theorist) the "left" and "right" alternatives are a dialectical pairing. If the left method has a flaw, the rightists' method has a parallel flaw. This is precisely the reason for the way both views have, beginning at about Rousseau's period, existed at the same time. Each is equally correct. My opinion, based on that reasoning was always that the "liberal" policy is the one to pick, but only because it is more practical. Capitalism, for example, tends liberal.