If you had to choose between two philosophies, one being survival of the fittest, the other being all for one and one for all, which one would you say resonates more in your heart? That we each have the right to strive for all we desire and that we have no obligation to help anyone else, or that we are only as strong as our weakest link?
In this fast paced world that in some sense is really becoming closer thanks to technology, and yet is drifting further apart due to economic inequality, this question is important.
Ask one person for an opinion on public assistance, affordable health care and education and you may hear the answer, “I worked hard to get where I am in life, everyone else has the same chance. Why should I give away or share what I have to help anyone?
Another person may answer, “I have been fortunate to have the education, support and ability to be very successful in life, I feel it is right for me to assist others in any way I can.”
Neither or these positions can be considered bad or wrong. Just different. We hear the debate about taxes, too much government control, unfair wealth distribution, etc. Yet what it all boils down to is the naked truth. Some have the philosophy that we, like some animals, are to fight and scratch for all that we can get out of this life. That the weak should be left to die because then the human species will have a stronger stand in the world. Others contend that the human species is different from the animals in that we reason, empathize and have a conscious awareness of something greater than ourselves.
While we debate the issues, as we will continue to do, let’s remember to be honest with ourselves when we are backing up our position. The naked truth is that you are either in the survival of the fittest camp, or you are in the all for one and one for all camp. It really is that simple.