When I wrote "Deadly Cynicism" I thought I had said almost everything I would have to say about cynicism. But today, while thinking about a number of unrelated issues (everything from nudity in films to the deceptive funding of ObamaCare), it struck me that our easy acceptance of cynicism as an explanation for almost everything also fills a quite self-serving function, that is, excusing all the behaviors I described in my series of posts running from "What We Deserve" through "Don't Blame the Politicians" and "The Presumption of Dishonesty", even to "Legislating By Lying". But more than that, I also realized that the cynical explanations we so readily provide, and accept, may themselves be just more symptoms of the cultural immaturity I have mentioned so many times before. ("Frightened for our Future", "The Adoration of Youth", "I Blame the Romantics", "Revisiting an Old Topic", "The Sky Is Falling! Again! Really! We Mean It This Time!", "Tired and Annoying Theme", "IMDB Makes My Case", "A Thought On the Watchmen", "Graphic Novels, Comic Books and Cultural Barometers", "An Interesting Article", "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"",  "Shame and Behavior", "Our Rude Behavior", "Social Controls", "Bad Economics Part 9", "Changing Incentives", "How Fast Things Change")

I was thinking today of the many arguments made that appeal to self-interest, especially self-interest when it is opposed to principle. For example, the many arguments offered by nominal conservative for regulating the oil industry when oil prices were high. And it made me wonder why we are so open about our self-interest in modern times. ("Lawyers Give Me a Perfect Analogy") Clearly, throughout history, people have been tempted to sacrifice principle to temporary expedients*, but in general it was treated as shameful, people felt guilty, and they hid their actions. Today, it is openly declared that one is acting in his own self-interest, that he is making an exception to his stated principles, and I wonder why that has become acceptable behavior.

And that is when it struck me what a useful role cynicism plays in such actions. In the past, when society as a whole made an effort to appear to live by their principles, it was accepted that people were expected to abide by certain norms, and people felt obligated to hide any violations of their beliefs. However, with the modern cynical view of life, the argument that everyone else is doing it, that given the chance others would take every advantage offered, it becomes much easier to violate one's own principles. After all, if you don't take advantage of an opportunity, even if it is against your beliefs, someone else will, so why not? If no one else lives by principles, why should you?

It actually goes a long way toward explaining something that puzzled me, why so many claim to oppose big government are still eager to call upon government to fix any problem that troubles them. The answer is, they imagine that if they don't demand the government act on their behalf, someone else will demand government act in their interest instead. With everyone being taxed to fund government, it becomes a zero sum game, and so we end up fighting over receiving benefits in which we officially do not believe.

But that is not the only explanation. Even if there were such a zero sum game, at one time there would have been more principled voices, those who would stand up and say "I do not believe in this program, and so do not want it, even if someone else benefits from my money." It is only because of our cynical beliefs, and the willingness it engenders in us to violate our professed beliefs.

Which brings me to my other revelation, the way this view has its roots in our immature culture. I have written about this topic at length, so I won't bother going into detail, but will instead just explain this single point. There are many origins of cynicism, I even went into some detail in "Deadly Cynicism", but one of the greatest forces pushing this viewpoint, is our childish perspective on life. As with many teens and those in their twenties, our "intellectuals" have become obsessed with the tawdry and debased. And, like teens having discovered that motives are not always noble, they focus on the debased to the exclusion of all else. This gives them not only a distorted view of their fellows, but also sets the stage to excuse any behavior on their part. After all, if everyone else is behaving in the most ignoble ways possible, moved by the most base motives, who could expect them to continue to uphold their standards?

The only problem is that all of this is simply a matter of perspective, the outcome not of the true nature of the world around us, but only of the viewpoint which has become common in our modern world. People are no more base today than a century ago, except, perhaps that they are more open thanks to their own cynical views. Nor is life any more complex or filled with "grey areas". It is only because we choose to focus on the tawdry, and to denigrate the principled that we reach the conclusions we do. Were we to see things differently, life could be quite different as well.

And yet, whenever I argue this point, I am sometimes denounced as naive and simplistic. Which is amusing coming form those who reduce every motivation to the most negative motive possible. Pursuing this debauched reductionism they are themselves guilty of extreme simplification, and yet they claim I am seeing things too simplistically.

How bizarre.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* I would argue that proper principles are not subject to such decisions. When one's principles are valid, then what may seem to be an expedient exception will, on reflection, prove to be more damaging than beneficial. However, proving as much will take too long for this post, so I won't bother arguing the point now. However, in the future I will write an extensive argument that shows how proper principles do not allow for conflict between principle and self-interest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

After writing this, I somehow came across this celebrity (or minor semi-celebrity) interview which seems to embody absolutely everything wrong with our culture. The obsession with sex, the attempt to remove emotion from all the traditional sources, and ascribe emotion to all the wrong things. The fascination with irresponsibility and "spontaneity". The perpetual childhood and self-absorption. The inability to even consider the thoughts, needs or feelings of another , in fact the inability to see them as anything but an object or a means to an end. And finally, in both the interviewer and interviewed, a tendency to substitute psychoanalysis for ethics. Everything I despise about modern culture, and everything which worries me about our times. All in one place. Quite a fortuitous discovery.

And before anyone criticize me for adopting a holier than thou tone, I freely admit to many failings, and confess I was immature and self-obsessed far too late into life. While I intellectually understood the value of political freedom, I did not grasp personal responsibility until far too late in life. I still regret the many stupid things this led to in my life. Yet, having lived that way,I am probably better positioned than most to criticize it.

In addition, I do not need to be perfect to criticize a behavior. A man who has cancer can still say cancer is a bad thing. Likewise, someone who drinks too much may still recognize alcohol abuse is damaging. And in the same way, I need not be a paragon of virtue to sing the praises of virtue. It is a peculiarity of our modern mind that we think one must always live up to all the virtues he endorses or he is a hypocrite. Far from it. One can fail to live up to many virtues and yet is perfectly justified in declaring the merits of those virtues.

And so, whatever my past failings, and whatever my current status, I have no problem saying that the mindset engendered in many by our immature culture is quite damaging and produces many particularly repellent human beings.