What it is to be good

Prelude

In a previous life, I was a philosopher. Not a terribly good one, but certainly keen. One thing that some philosophers like to talk about is pre-philosophical intuition. That’s what you think before you start thinking. You can jot it down, and then go away and think. Once you’ve thought, you might see things differently, or you might see things the same.

Now some would argue that your pre-philosophical intuition isn’t worth a whole lot. A belief has no value unless you have a theory backed by evidence to support it. They might start saying things like ‘knowledge is a justified true belief’; the sensible conversationalist will disengage.

Others will argue that a philosophy that clashes with deeply held pre-philosophical intuitions cannot possibly be right. These intuitions tell us something important about the world. Any theory or evidence that would force us to throw them away must be wrong, incomplete, or misunderstood.

Like most people, I’m somewhere in between. Intuition can tell us useful things about the world, but I wouldn’t trust it as much as Malcolm Gladwell. And reasoned theories supported by evidence are to be aspired to, but there’s only so many hours in the day. (If I had my notes in better order, I’d talk about the role belief plays in all rational thought. For now, I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader, or a future self – links most welcome!)

Good people do good things

Where’s all that leading? To my pre-philosophical intuition about personal morality, of course. As I mentioned, I was a philosopher in a previous life. As I also mentioned, I wasn’t very good at it. Thus, my pre-philosophical intuitions are by and large intact. My basic intuition is that that a good act is one that makes the world a better place. A good person is someone who does good acts. A bad person is someone who doesn’t.

Simplistic, yes. But perhaps also instructive. Now, it’s vague, but on this measure, I would have to say that I’m a bad person. Don’t get me wrong – I don’t do horrible things. It’s just that I don’t particularly do things that make the world a better place. Certainly, I could tweak this standard here and there to get a different result. I could put together a wonderful argument that its the height of arrogance and naivety to say that everyone should make the world a better place. What about the world’s poor? Are they bad people simply because they don’t have the opportunity to change the world for the better?

I would have to concede that those are good arguments; that they invalidate my intuition. Yet despite that, I still feel that there’s something to the intuition. It tells me something important about the world. Any argument that would force me to throw it away entirely must be wrong, incomplete or misunderstood. And so I keep this intuition around as a measure for myself, even if it’s not ready to share with anyone else (except you, internet.)

Urban growth boundary & population expansion – Letter to the editor

I managed to get through school without writing a single letter to the editor, and felt none-the-worse for it. Recently, though, I’ve felt compelled to do something to execute my civic duty. In the absence of a concrete action plan (as yet), I have decided that letter writing will be the thing to do. My first attempt is a response to Abby McKee of Greensborough (The Age Letters, 24/6), who wrote:

Where do we draw this grey line?

WEEK after week, letter writers to The Age suggest that the solution to urban sprawl is to limit Melbourne’s population growth.

We are yet to be treated to suggestions about how this should be achieved. How do we decide who is privileged enough to live here? Those of us who were here first and don’t want to see unit developments from our big backyards? Perhaps you need a family connection? An employment sponsor? A minimum bank balance?

Those who wish to see population growth limited clearly see the advantages of living in Melbourne, or they wouldn’t be so desperate to preserve their personal living standards. I am interested to hear how they propose to deny these advantages to others.

My response, submitted The Age on Wednesday 24/6 at 7PM EST:

Abby McKee (Letters, 24/6) reasonably requests those who would prevent expansion of the urban growth boundary to suggest how population growth should be accommodated.

I have lived in Melbourne my entire life, and love the city. However the need for change is undeniable. The high social and environmental costs of outer-suburban expansion are clear.

Melbourne is a great place to live, but it can be improved. More importantly, the coveted Melbourne life-style can be recreated elsewhere. This is the key to accommodating population growth – providing genuine, socially- and environmentally-effective alternatives.

Melbourne needs to change its current CBD-centric thinking. Both within the existing boundaries, and beyond in potential satellite cities such as Geelong, our focus should be to create walkable or rideable ‘villages’. These higher-density ‘villages’ would provide all necessary services without the need for lengthy car trips, and act as a hub to connect to the city-centre when necessary. To achieve this in an affordable way, efforts should focus on the expansion of existing communities, by filling gaps in service provision rather than starting from scratch.

I would be perfectly happy to live outside of Melbourne if a little bit of Melbourne could be recreated elsewhere.

Admittedly, I’m not sure I directly address her central concern – how are limited places to be assigned. This is, however, a first attempt, and I was labouring under a 200 word limit. My point is rather that we should seek to limit demand to live in Melbourne, by providing alternatives, rather than pandering to the demand. If I had responded to Abby’s central point, though, I would have said that they would be allocated as they are now: by the cold hand of the market. Which is effectively to agree that, yes, they would be allocated according to bank balances (or one’s willingness to take on debt) and the forces of supply and demand.

Update: I held back on posting this because I don’t know what The Age’s policy is regarding re-publishing letters. I suspect it doesn’t matter, and in any case, given the time lapse, I think that worthier letters have now been preferred for print.