The greatest evils in the world have been committed by those committed to a concept of the “greater good.” People are willing to commit small scale evils for personal gain or pleasure, but every large-scale evil arises from a desire to achieve a greater good.
Mao Zedong’s policies led to millions of deaths when he declared war on swallows and three other pests, since the birds ate seeds needed for the crops necessary to feed China’s massive population. But killing getting rid of the swallows increased the number of pests the swallows ate which led to a terrible famine and millions of human deaths. Ironically, an attempt to feed people led to starving them instead. On top of this, Mao’s Cultural Revolution led to the deaths of millions of China’s educated and intellectual class, all as part of an attempt to support his commitment to the common woman and man.
Similarly, in Cambodia, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge sought to bring a radical egalitarianism, abolishing money and requiring everyone to wear the same black clothing. Attempts to purge Cambodia of what he considered to be the toxic influence of Western thinking and ways of doing things led to mass incarcerations and killing fields. The goal was the support of the poor, but it unleashed a murderous slaughter that was absolutely horrific.
And then, of course, there was Adolf Hitler. His vision of the greater good included a world run by the Arian master race. He believed that Jews and gypsies and homosexuals and others were vermin who were ruining the world. If they could exterminated and the rest of the world subdued, then the Third Reich would usher in a new and better world, where technology and art and reason would rule through the Nazi party. Committed to this vision of the “greater good,” millions died in atrocious concentration camps and on battle fields.
All of these and more throughout history have been perpetrated on humanity when leaders have been committed to a vision of the “greater good” that led to compromises at great cost to humanity.
As we face the COVID-19 infection crisis, leaders around the world are faced with making decisions about the “greater good.” Every one of them requires a trade-off.
The greater good of freedom of movement. Countries that have tried to be less restrictive of the freedom of movement of their citizens have had higher infection rates. Italy and Spain are cases in point. Ironically, their initial commitment to this greater good has led to such high infection rates that they have reversed course and have become even more restrictive than they might have been in the first place. Basically, they have traded one greater good for another, the greater good of life.
The greater good of saving lives has led to not just the loss of the good of the freedom of movement but also the good of economic health. By shutting things down in order to protect the lives of the most vulnerable in their communities, countries like the United States have suffered vast economic declines. One estimate has the U.S. losing 47 million jobs. Every one of us has either lost of job or knows numerous people who have.
The greater good of economic health has led the Lieutenant Governor of Texas Dan Patrick to suggest the lives of the elderly might be sacrificed for the jobs and prosperity of the rest of the population. There is a logic to this thinking, even if it’s a brutal and ugly logic. It goes like this. In every generation throughout history, older members have made sacrifices for the sake of younger generations. This has flipped recently in our country, where the elderly have been counted on to vote for programs for themselves over programs for the poor and young. But if they were to give instead of take, they would be willing to risk being infected with COVID-19 so that businesses like restaurants could reopen, enabling their owners and employees to make ends meet.
The greater good of caring for the poor has led Democrats to propose more economic support for poor families and more finances poured into unemployment benefits. This means that less money gets earmarked for larger companies which provide the backbone for the economy as a whole. Focusing on caring for the poor runs the risk of pulling money from support for core companies which might fail as a result, leading to economic hardship for … the poor, since they’ll lose their jobs first.
The greater good of supporting economic pillars focuses on making sure the economy as a whole doesn’t go under. Supporting airlines and banks and hotels and so on could keep them alive and going and paying the wages of their many employees. But it ends up lining the accounts of the already wealthy while leaving the most vulnerable in the country at risk of financial ruin. We saw this take place in the recession of 2007-2008, where the banks which made bad loans were propped up while the homeowners who took out those loans were left high and dry.
The problem with each concept of the greater good is that every one of them has its blind spots. Each one makes compromises at great cost. Every great-seeming vision has its downside.
Should this paralyze us into non-action? No. We’ve got to make our decisions and move forward with them. But we need to be aware of the trade-offs we’re making. Lives have already been lost. Jobs have already been lost. Religious freedom to gather for worship has already been restricted. Companies have already been shuttered. So much has been lost already that inaction is insupportable. And I don’t disagree with any governmental decisions to this point.
“For the Greater Good” was the rallying cry in the Harry Potter world of Albus Dumbledore’s friend Gellert Grindelwald. It became the rationale for greater evil than good. This is almost always the case, because those who focus on their vision of the greater good tend to be so captivated by it that they consider any roadblocks to it worthy of destruction.
As we seek to stop the march of COVID-19 and rebuild in its wake, make we be very careful about the greater goods we pursue. They just might be more harmful than the coronavirus itself.