Focus on Life™

We like to have our freedom. It is great and fun to explore and extend our boundaries. We love to take the credit for our actions, but only selectively. Positive consequences are naturally ours to claim but what about the not so desired effects?

Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand—the greater the freedom the greater the responsibility as well. Our current society does not encourage personal freedom. In practice we are sanctioned, monitored, and restrained in almost all aspects of life. We have learned to behave obediently and not to question the behaviour patterns or norms of the society. Like Goethe once said: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”

We have created an artificial layer that is expected to protect individuals from harms and consequences of their personal actions. This has created a culture where people have become accustomed (or learned) to be passive and not to take action themselves. We expect someone else to tell us what to do or help us out of our own problems. This has come so far that we even regard we have the right and the others’ the moral obligation to unilaterally support us. We have isolated ourselves from the effects of our actions.

Our personal initiatives and responsibility are very limited, but so is our freedom as well. We have given up our rights in order to gain something for nothing. We prefer to have it easy and let others to bear the consequences for us. Unfortunately this is a zero-sum game in an aggregate level and as a result everybody is worse off. There are no free lunches—there is always someone paying the bill.

Isolating individuals from their actions’ consequences is a double-edged sword. It creates an illusion of safety and protection but at the same time it removes the control from the very person. And this creates uncertainty, fear, and self-esteem issues among others. Simply we do not feel anymore that the life is in our own hands: we are on top of the issues and have the solutions available for us. Confidence and security build from experience and the knowledge that we have the tools and the means to cope with our circumstances.

It requires practice and experience to become good at something. This means that we have learned something by experimenting and sometimes even making wrong choices that have guided us to do something differently in the future. In other words we have the motivation to keep going and get better. All this requires responsibility. Responsibility is the feedback mechanism that shows us how we are performing and the results of our pursuits. Mastery is only possible for those who are aware of their actions and their consequences.

Look around you—how much responsibility are we taking for our actions?

A society is decaying when it is interested in only of the effects and not in the causes. What happens when the ‘needs’ are of most importance and the ways to satisfy them are despised? A moral decline.

Who does not have any needs? We all do. Newspapers are full of ‘needs’ to be fulfilled. They are very urgent and thus must be satisfied at any cost. But whose needs are more important than anyone else’s?  Why should others fulfil someone else’s needs? In short, what is the justification for the underlying assumption that everybody else except the person itself should be responsible for satisfying one’s own needs? This is to say that it is fine and noble to receive without one’s own effort and let the others even work for it. To close the circle the ones who are working for the ‘needs’ of others are morally despised by the others because they are making an effort and thus at least are getting something done. They are called selfish and greedy. It is socially acceptable to receive benefits in due cause solely because one needs them but it is low and almost criminal to mind one’s own business and stand firmly on one’s own two feet. Their needs are of no importance since they are capable of taking care of themselves. Thus it is OK to discriminate against the ones with capabilities and virtue—“they have it all” as it is often said. It is the ones who do not have are more important exactly because they lack something. And because they have deficiencies their ‘needs’ have to be fulfilled. In another words, ability and hard work are less valued than ignorance and vices. Not doing and trying are achievement themselves whereas making an effort and working for one’s success are self-evident and of no importance whatsoever—they are sacrificial.

It is socially acceptable to care for others’ well-being, often even in general terms without being able to define the others specifically (i.e. ‘public good’, welfare of the state, general good or welfare), and to do something that is non-profit and thus ‘not selfish’. This means that everyone minds everyone else’s business but no one is allowed to mind one’s own. A socially acceptable and morally just society is one where no one is selfish and thus not focusing at all for one’s own needs and well being. In addition, it is socially acceptable to receive if one has needs but if everyone is just to receive from where is it all then coming from? And how can the others know exactly what are the most important needs for everybody else? Or is it so that there is a more general standard which defines what others are supposed to need and in what proportions? Or is it just called the welfare state and democracy by majority rule?

We regard ourselves as civilised but seldom we bother to define what does it really mean. Civilised is often confused with something modern and thus better than previous. But how can it be per default that something is better simply because it comes later?

Human history is a history of serfdom and slavery. A tiny minority rules the majority and the majority is kept under the current rule either by physical fear or imposing ideological and moral means for the same end. The end result has always been the same: some, very few, benefit and the rest pay and suffer the consequences. It does not really matter how the political system is called because actual, de facto, circumstances reveal the reality anyhow. Despotism, communism, democracy, socialism, capitalism, and feudalism are just abstract words with little concrete and commonly accepted meanings. The reality does not change by naming it differently. Also, the previous ideological principals that were the founding forces for something considered as noble at the time usually decay after a few decades or generations, and can revert to its opposite reality in practise.

Thanks to our history we have never experienced freedom. Therefore we are not accustomed to it either. It is difficult to claim something that is almost beyond practical comprehension. Liberty is one of the key things we have never realised in our societies. The Founding Fathers of the United States were probably the closest in our modern history to grasp the concept by stating in the Declaration of Independence the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

The statement holds some very strong fundamental concepts and moral ideas upon which all the rest is based on. It starts by stating that everybody is born equal and this self-evident fact cannot be changed during the course of anyone’s life nor can it be taken away from any person by any means whatsoever. Just to state this once again: everybody is equal and no one is above or below anyone else. This means that everybody has the inseparable right for his or her own independence and freedom, and since everybody is equal nobody has the right to violate anyone else’s independence and freedom (i.e.Rights) either. Especially the negative right is very important – a right to decline and refuse.
It continues by opening up some of these inseparable Rights by naming them: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. By saying that everybody has the inseparable right for his or her own life this means that everyone’s life is equally valuable and no one shall interfere with other’s life (or separate one from it). Liberty states the inseparable right for one’s own actions and their consequences (as long as they do not violate anyone else’s Rights). This means that one is free to choose his own moral choices but also to bear the consequences.
The Pursuit of Happiness declares that everyone has an equal opportunity to seek and discover his or her own happiness by one’s own means and choices. It does not state that one is entitled to happiness (i.e. one has a right for happiness). It does not define happiness since it is everyone’s own quest to define and materialise it in one’s life. Thus it is part of the liberty and freedom that everyone has. One is free to seek for his or her way of happiness and practise it as well without anyone’s interference.

Altogether, we are born free and equal and continue to be so along the courses of our lives. We are free to act and use our lives as we wish without anyone’s interference provided that we are not denying anyone else’s similar rights either. A mutually respective way of living based on everyone’s own actions and free will to exist independently.

The final sentence defines the role of Governments only as the means for the protection of the stated Rights, and nothing else. It does not define for governments any role per se and thus they only raison d’être is to make sure that every person is equal and their inseparable rights are not violated by anyone (not even by the government itself).

The above statement is very strong and the humanity has not been ready for it, as of yet that is. Why? Because it is made for grown-ups that are expected to appreciate their own and other’s life above anything else, and respect this principal by not violating anyone else’s rights by force (i.e. involuntarily). It requires that everyone is responsible of one’s own life including one’s own actions and their consequences. This means that one appreciates oneself and lives by one’s own standards, values and moral choices without imposing them to anyone else involuntarily neither directly nor indirectly (i.e. by third parties or entities such as government). It also means that we are free to pursue our own course of life and enjoy from it as well. Especially the last points have been very difficult and basically non-existing in the modern Western societies.

Coming back to our legacy we have always been under someone’s rule either physically, mentally or spiritually and therefore it is very natural for us to expect something or someone to look after us and tell us what to do. This parenting concept is so evident that we don’t even realise it. We expect someone else to take responsibility of our own lives and let us follow the lead. Naturally there has been and always will be people who are ready to take the lead and define the rules how the rest of the population should behave, think, act, work and most of all live their lives. By allowing this to happen we give away our own liberty but more importantly we force others under someone else’s rule and judgement and thus deny their very Right for independent existence. Imposed liberty is no liberty at all. So far liberty has been too precious to be left for everyone to seek for and purse themselves.

When you are angry ask yourself: Who is angry?

When you are disappointed ask yourself: Who is disap-
pointed?

When you are in need of something ask yourself: Who
needs?

When you are sad ask yourself: Who is sad?

Why is it that it is always the external world that is to be
blamed? And yet, all of your answers start with I (with a cap-
ital letter). Who is this I (who is angry, disappointed, in need,
and sad)?

This mysterious I interacts with the world but still takes
no responsibility for his or her actions. Why does this I always
projects the reasons for hardship and excuses on the external
world? Interaction requires at least two parties.

How about sorting out things with this I first and dealing
with the world later?