Misplaced Responsibity

It's Everyone Else's Fault

The politics of guilt and pity have a lot to answer for.  It's a national plague.  The modern phenomenon of culture-wide guilt and pity arises out of the world-view of egalitarianism.  In this wretched perspective anyone who is less well off, or less wealthy than oneself is an object of pity.  They are the deprived, the suffering, and the afflicted--worthy objects of our compassion.

The welling up of pity assuages the guilt which is also the product of egalitarianism.  The prevailing idea of egalitarianism is that if someone has less, the cause of their deprivation is that others have more.  The pie is fixed in size.  There are only so many pieces to go around.  If someone has a smaller piece than others, it is because others have unjustly seized bigger pieces. 

The politics of guilt and pity lead to one outcome.  A demand that the state "do more" and rule, regulate, and intervene to ensure the greediness of the guilty is compensated by the government, which will "do something" for the deprived.  Hence, in this way, guilt and pity are perfectly reconciled.  Except they are not.  The pity was false to begin with.  As false as the guilt.  Both are products of a madcap and bizarre egalitarianism, which is one of the stupidist notions ever to afflict the most stupid of stupid people.  The escalating of the "problem" to the government to rule, regulate, and fix puts salve on both the guilt and pity feelings.  But the problem was false to begin with.  The "solutions" are equally false. 

Below is an illustration of guilt and pity at work.  Lauren Priestley tells us how a young mum has been hard hit by the housing shortage.
 

A stoush over state housing tenancy rights has seen a young mother evicted with nowhere to turn.  The Pt England, Auckland resident, who asked not to be named, was given 21 days to leave her Housing New Zealand home of 15 years when her sick mother was moved to a rest home in October. Her mother died on December 5.  The 26-year-old has a 6-month-old baby and a 6-year-old daughter.

A young lady has been afflicted with difficult circumstances.   Her mother, whom she has been living with, has died.  Her mother lived in a government provided, state house.  Now that her mother no longer lives in the state house, the daughter and her children cannot remain because they have never been tenants in the first place.

The state landlords have not been heartless. 

Housing New Zealand spokeswoman Denise Fink said the tenancy legally ended on October 30. The state housing landlord issued an extension while the resident searched for another home but eventually had to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for immediate possession. Eviction was the only remaining option after months of repeatedly visiting and advising the tenant, Fink said.  "We have invested a huge amount of time and effort in working with her to support her in finding alternative accommodation."

The suppressed premises in this discussion come straight out of egalitarianism.  The woman has a right to have a home provided for her.  The ethic of egalitarianism requires it, demands it be so.  The state has a duty and responsibility to ensure she is housed.  Inflamed by pity, our guilt will be assuaged when the state provides. 

The young mother doubtless deserves compassion and pity over the death of her mother.  But just maybe this person in question should reflect on why it was that at the age of 26 she was dependant upon her mother to provide housing for her.  Moreover, where is/are the father(s) of her six month old and six year old daughters?  Is she taking any personal responsibility for these circumstances for which she has been and is responsible?

It is at this point that egalitarianism falls apart.  It is nothing more than a mathematical abstraction elevated into a dystopian social ideal.  Rather, human beings are responsible for their actions. If they act irresponsibly consequences will inevitably follow.  Parents need to take responsibility for themselves and their children.  Failure to do so, or an unwillingness to do so, represents true moral guilt--not the faux guilt of egalitarianism, where disingenuous guilt is deflected to the "system" or to government. 

Of course this is not to say that such people do not need help.  But help can be far more effectively given and received whenever a person acknowledges their own complicity and responsibility for any contribution their actions, decisions, or inactions have made to their difficult circumstances. 

Egalitarianism insists that any such ethical failings on the part of the subject are irrelevant because they are fictional.  It is all systemic.  And, therefore, we are all responsible for the situation of this young mother, and our guilt will only be assuaged when we do something for her.  The guilt is faux; the pity is also false. 

But, crucially, such doctrines risk consigning people to a lifetime of dependence and degradation.  "Because the system bears guilt, the system must have pity upon me;  in the meantime, I have demand-rights.  Pay up."  The mantra of perpetual dependence.  It's where egalitarianism leads.

Hat Tip: Pete George