Exactly, we agree. It's a collaborative effort and everyone made some contribution.
And we have a civic duty to direct society to foster man's natural goodness, rather than exploit and abuse him until he becomes parasitic or irretrievably cynical.
I don't believe in man's "natural goodness". That's a moral argument that assumes a static "good" that can be identified and applied universally. Since the dawn of time the concepts of 'good/bad/right/wrong' have changed as new discoveries were made and technology advanced. To assume that current definitions of 'goodness' won't change in the future is naïve.
Instead, I believe in man's will to power and the natural law to apply that will on this earth. I believe 'civic duty' is a noble concept though I see it as the substitution of religious morality to the masses that coincidentally rose as the power of the church declined.
However, as long as these concepts are adhered to on a voluntary basis I have no qualms but as soon as any 'system of thought' is placed on a pedestal under the cover as what's 'best for all' then a system of coercion will be designed to enforce it and its legitimacy is destroyed.
The most cogent example still defining human purpose is the declaration that all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That they have a right to speak their minds, write down these thoughts, to defend their lives and property, to a fair and impartial judicial processes, to be free of the tyranny of religious institutions and standing armies, to be free from unusual and cruel punishment and to retain (as a free man) all other rights not afforded here.
I am not my brother's keeper until I 'choose' to be.
