What I see currently is the disregard for others, the whole, or the future as being the value that is in the ascendency.
Concur. I think thoughtlessness, in general, is in the ascendancy. That subsumes disregard for others. It also subsumes willful ignorance, short-sightedness, and lack of appreciation.
I speculate that not having a universal requirement to serve the nation has helped in the ascendency of this negative value.
I have mixed feelings about the draft. I think we lost something when young people no longer had to mix and team with a variety of people. Beyond that, I see more lost opportunity with mandatory public service than benefit.
The concept of shared sacrifice is no longer there.
I agree that that's so. I disagree that it's a net loss.
Service takes the individual out of his/her melieu and makes him/her part of a larger concept
A couple of points about that.
First of all, you're equating service and sacrifice. I don't think that's valid. I "served" for 30 years but not as a sacrifice. I found a niche where I could contribute and satisfy my own self-actualization at the same time. Yes, there was some sacrifice involved, especially salary and perks, but that was hardly a motivator. Look at the Army ads--"be all you can be." They don't invite people to come sacrifice together. I think you'd have to be pretty neurotic to respond to that message. You sign up because of the opportunities to grow, to do work that suits you and be paid for it, however poorly, to participate and form bonds with like-minded people, for a sense of accomplishment, and to be part of something important.
Secondly, I don't think that mandatory community service buys you the attitude you're seeking. Could happen here and there. But more likely you'd find a bunch of bored kids putting in whatever minimal effort was required during work hours and goofing off the rest of the time until they could get out of "jail" and get on with their lives. You'd more likely end up with a more disaffected and resentful cohort. I think it would be at best a waste of taxpayer money. If there's a genuine crisis, then getting young people to set aside their lives and work together can foster the attitude you seek. But genuine crises usually require skills, not raw kids, and usually happen too quickly to gather and train kids. There was a time when warm bodies were often all that was needed. Those times are past. I understand the nostalgia for it but that doesn't make the construct useful now.
Those individuals are then imbued with an ethical framework...
That's way late in life to be building an ethical framework. Kids should have learned to share, to help out, to appreciate their accident of birth, and to value what's positive in society and nature well before they're eligible to get shanghaied into national service.
Yes, we have a meritocracy, but all individuals must serve the common good first for the good of the whole.
Sort of. The good of the whole is important. But to sacrifice for the good of the whole as a primary impetus seems really bass-ackwards to me. A smart kid will recognize that contributing to the good of the whole is in his own best interests with the added benefit of serving others. That's a win-win. Sacrifice is inherently a lose-win notion. Win-win is clearly preferable.
I infer that you think that the alternative to a framework of sacrifice is win-lose--blatant, short-sighted selfishness. I submit that that is not so. The ethics needed are not sacrifice but achieving within the rules, recognizing and fostering the societal elements that support mass winning, and character traits like learning, industry, responsibility, supportiveness, cooperation. It seems to me that the most valuable characteristic that we've lost is not sacrifice but personal responsibility. It further seems to me that advocating sacrifice as a prime ideal undermines rather than fosters a strong and healthy nation.
Anecdote. I was emailing yesterday with a friend who shares tools/toys with a neighbor. It's the neighbor, not my friend, who owns the snow thrower. During the Blizzard of 2010, the neighbor cleared his driveway, then started my friend's, their regular protocol. The machine broke down soon after. To make a long story short, my friend's reaction was that he'd need to get his own snow-thrower before next winter. He didn't like that his neighbor was doing his driveway even though he does equivalent things for his neighbor. He didn't like being dependent and he felt he was shirking his responsibility by not having the wherewithal to clear his own space. He felt bad that he hadn't done for himself. Now, I don't think it practical or necessary for both of them to have snow throwers, but I do respect his prime reaction of personal responsibility.
IMO we should be promoting a stronger sense of personal responsibility, not sacrifice. If more people had a sense of personal responsibility, there would be less need for sacrifice in the form of community service because so many you would sacrifice to help could do for themselves if they just had the character, the motivation, and a stronger societal expectation. Encouraging community service as sacrifice on their behalf reinforces their lack of character. That's not to say we shouldn't help those who can't do for themselves, only that we should help in a more constructive framework, one that doesn't leave the impression that it's OK to be so irresponsible as to result in someone sacrificing to help you.
The nation was born, more or less, and preserved, more or less, within the framework of this concept--shared sacrifice.
That's not the history I learned. In my history, it was about building a better way of life--about opportunity, a better world, not sacrifice. |
