There are plenty of things people tell us we should do. We should exercise, eat a healthy diet, drink water, be courteous, and a whole host of other things.
Contained in any good piece of advice is some implicit benefit or good reason to do what is asked. Whether it’s health, decorum, or success, there is some worthy end goal.
In light of recent world events, we’ve seen a resurgence of the subtly pernicious argument that America “should do something because it’s the right thing to do.” This “something” ranges from accepting and housing millions of foreigners to sending billions of our dollars to prolong a stagnant European conflict.
What’s so interesting about this argument (and why it is used so often) is that there is no end to what it can justify. People are hungry around the world and that is not right. But America does the right thing, so we should send them money or food, the argument goes.
People in other countries live in squalor, languishing under oppressive and corrupt governments, another variation of this argument runs. We have it good here, so we should let them in.
What happens, however, is that we feel bad about saying no to anything framed in this light. For the most part, everybody wants to do the right thing, and this line of reasoning is designed to attack that sentiment.
That’s why it is interesting to take a step back and analyze an argument first, figuring out exactly what it says. In this case, we are told America should — and by should, they mean must — take action because it is right. But that “right” is not defined internally. It remains an ambiguous blob hanging out in the background, taking whatever form it needs. For thousands of years, philosophers have pointed out the importance of defining your terms. Ambiguity and snuck premises are hallmarks of sophistry.
Ultimately, this argument boils down to what the purpose of our government is. Without a solid outline of the width and breadth of America’s role and power, we can easily find ourselves everywhere doing everything.
Thomas Hobbes wrote that human existence is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Those words are as true now as when he wrote them reflecting on the brutal English Civil War. It is good that we in America feel for people living in unfortunate circumstances. However, if we allow our national policy to be ruled by feeling, we’ll end up in a whole mess of trouble.
Does the state exist to provide international charity? What role should America take in rehabilitating failing countries? How much of our money and how many of our jobs and resources should we give to foreigners for simply arriving on our doorstep?
I do not have the answers, but actions have consequences, and we should consider what they mean for our nation.
We are the heirs and custodians of a great nation built by enterprising men dating back to Plymouth Rock. They did not do what they did entirely for themselves. The Constitution’s Preamble states that our Founders did what they did both for themselves and their posterity. The men at Valley Forge, Saratoga, New York, Boston, and Yorktown did not fight and die for some amorphous cosmopolitan vision. Nor did those at Horseshoe Bend, Fort Mims, or New Orleans. The Founders fought for themselves, their families, and those who would come after.
Before we spend any more money, send any more troops, or clear out any more nursing homes to give illegal aliens a place to sleep, the least we can do is ask, “Why?”
Nick Treglia is a first-year law student.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to Commentary@1819news.com.
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
