Moj najljubši članek tega tedna je razprava zgodovinarja Davida Woottona o liberalizmu. Opiše evolucijo utilitarizma, kot temelja liberalizma, ki na naše početje glede strogo računovodsko – kot na knjigovodski popis občutkov zadovoljstva in bolečine. In ko imate takšno bilanco na dnevni ravni, ko lahko na dnevni ravni “izračunate” vaše “neto zadovoljstvo“, lahko torej tudi preprosto matematično maksimirate vaše zadovoljstvo. Toda ta računovodski, racionalistični pogled na naše početje kot razliko med vsotama zadovoljstva in bolečine je individualističen, razčlovečen in ahistoričen. Z njim ne morete razumeti sreče, “žrtvovanja sebe” za družino, z njim ne more razumeti zadovoljstva, ki ga prinaša osrečevanje drugih. Z njim ne morete razumeti, zakaj so ljudje večinsko proti imigracijam ali zakaj volijo Trumpa, AfD, za Brexit, saj so imigracije vendar ekonomsko neto pozitivne.
S tem računovodskim pogledom, ki ignorira človečnost, kulturo in zgodovinski kontekst, pač pa naše početje zreducira na uokvirjeno racionaliziranje posamičnih dejanj, ne morete razumeti sveta in zakaj počnemo stvari, kot jih počnemo. Morda bi največjim libertarnim utilitaristom koristilo, če bi pri študiju utilitarizma od Hobbesa do Benthama upoštevali zgodovinski kontekst, zakaj se je utilitarizem razvil v obliki, kot se je. Zakaj se je takrat – v vojnah med katoliki in protestanti – bilo treba odpovedati “neracionalnim” človeškim prepričanjem, veri, identiteti in zakaj je abstrahiranje teh “neracionalnosti” danes največji problem pri razumevanju vzpona populizma. In morda bi pomagalo še branje zadnje knjige Francisa Fukuyame “Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment“.
In 1826 the 20-year-old John Stuart Mill had a nervous breakdown. He had been raised by his father, James, as a utilitarian. Consequently, he had believed that all that mattered in life was pleasure and pain. Suddenly, nothing gave him pleasure anymore. Having been taught that his purpose in life was to spread happiness, he now realised, as he later reported in his Autobiography, that making other people happy would not bring about his own happiness. He emerged from this crisis when he realised that happiness is peculiar: it is a byproduct of doing something you care about, something you believe in. Paradoxically, he was now free to devote himself once more to making other people happy. His recovery began when he read the historian Jean-François Marmontel’s account of the death of his father and wept. Mill, having imagined the death of his own father, had begun to think and feel for himself.
Nadaljujte z branjem→
You must be logged in to post a comment.