This past Wednesday we talked about whether most people are “generally good” or not. Though this question seems like a yes/no question, it isn’t, and answers can and probably should address this question with all the grey areas in between. The range of human personalities (in the vague terms of “good” and “bad”) probably conforms to a bell curve; some individuals are saints, others villains, and most people are in between. I think that whether or not individuals act in a way we consider moral likely depends on the environment of those individuals. If people are not stressed for resources, are not being oppressed, then they will be amenable to acting in a good way; if they are stressed for resources or being oppressed, then they will be more likely to act in a bad way.

I think that it’s crucial for the vitality of a society for its individuals to look critically and their lives and their environment. We citizens (or at least residents, in the practical sense rather than the legal sense) of the United States, the richest, most powerful country in the world, live lives of relative luxury, and are therefore quite capable of helping other people. We may feel good when we give a few dollars to charity, or help out a friend, or a stranger on the street, these acts are relatively small compared to the “bad” things we do. For example, buying a good portion of our clothing from underpaid individuals, often children, working in poor/unsafe conditions. Or throwing our “garbage” into trash cans, allowing them to fill up landfills, or accumulate in the Pacific Ocean, or some other peripheral fate, externalizing the cost to third world countries and/or future generations.

While we all certainly have the ability to act better, we shouldn’t delude ourselves by saying that the minor good deeds mentioned before constitutes the entirety of our obligation/contribution to those who inhabit and share this earth.