The end of art is the beautiful, as the end of philosophy is truth, and the end of ethical action is the good. To insure that art is not only a business proposition, we must measure both the price of the painting and it beauty. Before investing in a painting for $100,000 we would want to know how much beauty it contains. We might do better to buy another painting that contains more beauty for the same price, or maybe buy two for half as much both containing 60% as much beauty as the $100,000 painting. That would yield more beauty per dollar. So too in philosophy, we must measure the cost of the philosopher's time and training and the truth he or she creates, adjusted for the time taken and the present value of future truth. And we must then compare that cost to truth created per dollar invested in any other philosopher. Likewise with nonprofits, we must measure the good done, the cost of doing it, and the time taken. Then we will have the linked comparable data we need to make decisions.
In a pluralist society we do not agree on the good, or the true, or the beautiful; that is why we have so many religious traditions, so many schools of thought, and political parties, and even so many brands. For example, one might value, as do the Amish, a traditional way of life, and another might prefer a community more technologically advanced. How can we then measure the good or the harm of inserting into a traditional society a low cost way to advance technology? Such as treadle operated generators for cell phones, or a generator that is operated by a pulley? A dung fired smokeless generator? Will we in imposing our western ways do more harm than good? How will we know? Who should we ask? And if we think we already know, might we read, or might we teach the rising generation of social entrepreneurs, The Heart of Darkness, about one like us, Kurtz, from the best schools, a rising star, who was to bring the great torch of Enlightenment to the dark world of the Congo, while also extracting ivory and becoming a rich man? We who have not learned such lessons from those who have gone before will now construct as trusted intermediaries a great Taxonomy of Good? Is that ambition not so blind as to disqualify not only us but our teachers, and the administration of the elite schools fostering such moral insanity? I am asking, as a Morals Tutor myself; and one much in need of a job, who has a great deal of time on his hands. Surely at some business school I could be set to work microtuning the Database of Good, insuring it is sufficiently subtle to handle what we might have learned from Plutarch, or Conrad, or Blake, or Dickens. It would be a shame if we built the Taxonomy of Good and left out light and shadow, the Tree of Knowlege, the apple, and the snake. As to which religion does the most good, that is something I will settle once given the authority to manage the metrics. It really doesn't matter that much to me, what matters to me is having the power, really. Whatever I say is the most good, no matter how benighted I am, will be operative when it comes to funding, and the Pope can kiss my ring.
Comments