[governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society

[Paul Lehto]

On 1/18/10, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
[snip]
> 	Reduce by two thirds, between 1990 and
> 2015, the under-five mortality rate
>
> Now I believe that no one on this list, and
> certainly no one at the United Nations, is in
> favor of any residual infant mortality.  However,
> note that the goal is not to eliminate infant
> mortality completely,  but to reduce it very
> significantly.  This is possibly a realistic
> goal.  If it can be met (and Iam not an expert on
> whether it is feasible or not), then a next
> reasonable goal would be to reduce it further.
>
> There are some things that you can do with a
> realistic goal such as this. [snip]
>
> This takes work.  Discussion is useful, but is
> likely to be sterile unless followed by or
> accompanied by significant action.  I argue that
> the action should be directed toward achievable
> goals, achievable relative to the mandate and the
> resources of the organization, both in the short
> and long run.

This may perhaps just be a difference in terminology, or it may not.
But a "goal", without any modifying adjective, is a final destination
or completion.  If it's an interim goal, a steppingstone, a benchmark
of progress then the "goal" should be described as such.  "Achievable
goals" within resource limits of a finite organization are only
limited, interim goals.

Using the example of child mortality, the ONLY "goal" without any
modifier as a final destination would be its elimination. The only
"goal" as a final destination for equality is perfect equality.

Now, this causes the objection, heard above, that "achievable" goals
are desired, because the world is 'imperfect."  This is fine if what
you mean is interim goals, but if the TARGET in terms of a final
destination is only to cut the rate of unavoidable mortality by half,
one has left the other half, perhaps consisting of millions of
children over time, to die.  Worst of all, the deaths of millions of
children in this as yet unserved half of the child population is
defined as a "goal" -- is that really desirable?

Let's take Honesty as an example. We all know the world's imperfect
with  honesty and probably can never achieve 100% honesty and perhaps
some would argue in unusual situations honesty isn't desirable, but
let's take the usual situations as our example.  Should we have a
"realistic" achievable goal of lying only 50% as much as previously?
This would be appropriate only as an interim goal, a benchmark of
progress but not as a final destination.

Though we may admit we will never reach a final destination type of
goal, it is a mistake not to keep that goal in view and to SHOOT FOR
IT, even as we know we're assured practically of failure, or at least
we fear so.  If we shoot for the stars, as they say, we may fall short
but still end up on the moon.

On the other hand, if we give up our principles or ideals as goals,
such as if we give up the ideal of Honesty, what happens in fact is
that we become PATHOLOGICAL liars.  We don't even care about the
truth, or know what it is, or feel any compunctions about straying
from the truth because we've lost sight of the guidestar of Honesty -
the ideal of Honesty is no longer our goal.

I've no objection to achievable INTERIM goals.  I would object to
dropping ideals or principles as ultimate goals.  As ultimate goals,
even if we are guaranteed never to achieve the full goal, it still
provides a critical function in guiding our actions, like the ideal of
Honesty does.  Even as we breach or violate the ideal of honesty, we
know deep down we lied, and that is very important - it avoids being a
pathological liar.

What's objectionable to me, because it creates the danger of
pathology, is the risk of intentionally or unintentionally abandoning
important ideals as ultimate goals on the grounds that they are
utopian and not practical, pie in the sky and not achievable, etc.
That can all be considered to be true, and yet it is still dangerous
pathology to abandon the ideal, and it is ill advised to discredit the
ideal such as Honesty with arguments that it is utopian, naive,
unachievable in fact, and not workable or very facilitative of
tangible measurable goals.

A principle or ideal, such as Honesty or Net Neutrality (however we
define those things) is like a North Star or a guidestar:  We may
never actually reach it, but if we don't keep it at hand and
preferably in sight at all possible times, we will surely get lost -
just as the pathological liar is truly lost.

Understanding ideals as guidestars and preferably not casting
aspersions on guidestars, we will maximize our chances of reaching
every achievable goal, because it is ideals and the inspirations they
provide  that provide the fuel for our journey, in addition to  the
direction of our journey.

All the talk about achievability or pragmatism can all be deemed to be
totally true, and yet that is still not grounds for discounting the
importance of the ultimate ideal(s) in question. As they say, "keep
your eyes on the prize."
Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t