In his book on Page 186, American Iconoclast, The Life and Times of Eric Hoffer, biographer Tom Shactman writes this about Eric Hoffer: : "Venturing to teach people how to live--something he had previously avoided--Hoffer stated, 'It is not only more sensible but more humane to basis social practice on the assumption that all motives are questionable and that in the long run social improvement is attained more readily by a concern with the quality of results than with the purity of motives.' To assume otherwise was 'romanticism.'"
Hoffer is no Kantian stickler about pure motive--unlike true believing intellectual and ideologues whining that all good efforts must be rejected until the right and pure motive at that is the source of an action.
His ethical code seems much more consequentialist. If society unleashes real liberty per agent, and admonishes the agent to go make money, maverize, play, work and just live. We would urge that the citizens have fine, noble motives, but more important is the results, the indirect benefit to all from doing one's own thing is for the betterment of society.
Hoffer has a low opinion of human nature. What motivates much of human behavior, being as most are nonindviduators and group-livers, just getting their behavior peaceful, law-abiding, orderly and cooperative is all that they handle and all that anyone sensible can expect. To insist on perfect motives from all people all the time, or nothing, is to trigger the rise of a totalitarian state.
He who loves people is patient, and does not expect too much too soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment