The Greater Good:

The idea of the greater good is one that has been around for generations. We are a species that has within it a compassionate side and yet we are a species that can also use compassionate intentions for much evil as well. One need only to look into recent human history to understand that many evil things have been done in the name of "defending liberty" and one could go back even further in time to see how much evil had resulted from "ending suffering and evil." This is all done in the name of the greater good. However there is a clear process that take place, and it usually starts with a genuine if not pure intention. So we follow through with this intention and as time goes on the people go through hard times in hopes of something being for a greater good for all humanity. Ultimately, this power given to the genuine if not good intentioned behavior is going to end up creating the circumstances we wished to avoid. The issue at hand here is not an issue of "how many" but rather "whom" in other words the definition of the Greater Good is a qualitative understanding not a quantitative one. The aim of this essay is twofold: First to show how the idea of greater good is qualitative and not quantitative. The second is to give form from the chaos that will come from understanding the first aim.

The first thing to show here is how the greater good is an issue of quality. Our story is simple enough to prove that the greater good is a qualitative property and not so much a measurable quantity. This is a 4 step storyline, and although short it offers an intense amount of truth to those who have the capacity to contemplate on the story presented. There are four aspects or groups in this society; they are as follows: The Dissenters, The Complacent, The Leadership and finally, those who enforce the leadership's commands. Now the dissenters can be anyone however, let us just call this group the informed citizen who works against the interests of the leadership. The Complacent are those who tolerate the actions of or are ignorant or apathetic toward the leadership and the enforcers, these people however have the potential within them to become dissenters. The Leadership is the central pillar behind "doing what is best for the greater good." The enforcers obviously enforce leadership commands. This is the way it is and for all intents and purposes the leadership nor do the enforcers become the dissenters.

To begin at Step 1 let us set a prelude to the actions that are about to come. Let us use something from recent history as an example of how powerful institutions use events to further their agendas. After 9/11 security and protection from an elusive terrorist foe was of highest priority. Our leaders and experts told us that security was the highest goal to achieve, even at the expense of civil liberty. Our executive branch of government told us this continuously and was given an unconstitutional level of powers granted by congress (our elected representatives) so as to protect American interests and civilians as well as to go to war with terrorists who pose a threat to us. We being fearful and complacent gave that authority to our president. So our story begins here as we see that the powerful institutions of our time use "expanded powers within certain branches of government for the improved security and protection of the Greater Good."

Now we arrive to the present situation at Step 2. In Step 2 dissent is silenced. It need not be through mass arrest and execution. It can be through intimidation techniques or pressure on public figures and mediums regarding sensitive information concerning "the improvement in security and protection of the greater good." Ultimately, dissent is stifled or hidden so well that a critical view cannot be heard or seen without much work. What makes this situation even harder is that usually after some large tragedy or incident there are only a couple of dissenters who protest the actions of those who "have the security of the greater good in mind." They will of course be demonized if not out rightly be accused of treason.

In Step 3 we arrive to the hastening of the process of silencing dissent in the nation. However, the dissenting movement has grown in its numbers and now becomes a threat to the "security of the greater good." So now either progressively or immediately the empowered leadership begins the process of imprisoning dissenters and punishing dissenters by rewarding the enforcers with more power to battle against the dissenting population. Over time should nothing be done by anyone else, the dissenters are silenced or become (like in step 1) a minority group again. This is the climax here, if half of the population or more is dissenting against the leadership than the quantitative idea of a greater good goes out the window. Even if a quarter or an eighth of the population is sacrificed for the sake of the "protection of the greater good" an issue of morality will come into place and a critical view will be cast upon the leadership, which allows the dissenting movement to grow further.

In Step 4 we finally arrive to the end result if the society fails to act appropriately. The end result is that only a few permanently compliant remain and the leadership becomes brutally oppressive. The few compliant will remain complaint because they have realized when it is too late that they should have dissented back in Step 2 and maybe even Step 3. However, they certainly will not now largely because they have grown completely terrorized by the power of the leadership and its enforcers as well. The government will have grown increasingly oppressive only because, of the actions of the dissenters who "threatened the security of the greater good" from this the power that was once the peoples has been transferred over to the leadership, this power will not be transferred back to the people unless they come out of their complacency. Thus we have a slippery slope of possibly good intentions gone badly.

The truth is that a quantitative greater good leads to a quantitative greater evil. However, the true greater good that we as the commoners should be striving for is a qualitative greater good in our lives and our nation. No more fake prosperity, we should be able to live within our means so that we might be able to advance as a species but also as individuals as well. The term "Greater Good" needs to be rephrased to "The Greatest Good" in other words a life of quality and not quantity. The greatest good comes to those who value the quality of their lives. Not by societies definitions but rather as your definitions.

The Concept of Greater Good is based in quality. Goodness cannot be measured by some unit. It can only be detected seen, heard and felt through thought and action alone. It can only be determined in a subjective and yet reasoned manner. The truth is quality can only be detected by those who know themselves, are pure of heart and humble in their own lives. To those who follow such advice will see that they will reach their potentials and understand what true and lasting quality really is. So seek to create the greatest good in your own life, not necessarily by the quantity of physical possessions or be led astray (all the time) by worldly passions, but by achieving a goal to master your own self while you are young and to embrace all that comes your way.

A Lesson can be learned here concerning the greater good and that lesson is that one should always Question the Purity or Intentions of a "Greater Good/Compassionate Leadership". If you recall from George Orwell's novel 1984, there were a few ministries present within English Socialism (IngSoc). There was The Ministry of Love, The Ministry of Plenitude, and The Ministry of Peace. Each of these ministries however, was responsible for creating the exact opposite circumstances of its entitled intention. So it is with the idea of any government to try and make "it look good" in front of the people granting them power, that is what happens to all elected officials, they need to make themselves look good. However, it is the job of the citizenry to see through their rationalized compassion and simply see the government for what it is: a threat that may progressively or quickly encroach upon the rights of the Citizenry with or without even noticing it.

To begin to finish this, I simply can only warn you the reader that the Steps are Simple, they are Subtle and yet they are the road to a Dangerous Path that will only lead to the abuse of power. The elected will first say "may we do that?" Every time the state asks the governed body for more power (whether directly or indirectly), we must say no every time, regardless of how our government plays on the emotions of the citizen. Employ common sense at once regardless if the state is playing on compassion and empathy or if they are playing on fear and hate. This good intentioned nature sets up a slippery slope mindset in the state that "If I Do X than why not Y and than why not Z?" So in other words, that "May I?" will turn into "I Will!" The Argument over the concept of The Greater Good is Qualitative. Every time we hear the elected (or selected) official speak of something being in the best interest of The American People, which is of course just masking "the greatest good" concept it should be the duty of the citizen to ask government "whose greatest good?" Not "how many will benefit?" After further investigation into such matters inform the citizenry who will be affected by the speakers' actions. The Evils of the welfare state are clear example with the "good" of The "Greater Good" the welfare state needs to end as it spreads more evil and vice than it promises virtue and good.