Natural Courtesy
The world is sadly lacking in this vital commodity. It is, paradoxically, considering the name I’ve given it, not naturally occurring at all. Natural courtesy is that unfailing and unasked mannerliness that characterises gentlefolk of both sexes. It is not the exclusive property of any particular class though it is easier for the mantle of natural courtesy to be acquired by someone in good circumstances, materially affluent and well-educated, and, hence, it probably ought to more expected and less valued in those from that group. When it is found, as it quite often is, in those of less affluent background, it is remarkable because I think that natural courtesy, which is the right human way to be, is something that is unnatural to us as animals. That person who exhibits, or more, practices natural courtesy in their dealings with the world, is that much more developed as a human being. This is the person who better understands and protects the present and future of the human race. She manages inclinations that are inherent, selfish and short-sighted. Her natural courtesy, on the other hand, enhances civilisation and will help preserve the human race, giving us a future worth striving for.

It seems, though, that every day we move farther and farther away from the ideals of natural courtesy towards a materialistic ethic characterised by behaviour directed to satisfying selfish and immature ‘needs’; in other words, we keep sliding back down the evolutionary ladder. Americans particularly seem to be inclined this way but they are by no means the only members of the club. Newly wealthy Asian societies are producing some of the more outrageous examples of this ethic and representatives of it are found in every single country; interestingly, it seems to occur more in places where the rule of law is weaker and where wealth in newer. The connection between the place that rule-of-law occupies in a society and the presence or absence of natural courtesy is pretty direct in my view. And, of course, rule-of-law requires fierce defence not just against its possible subversion by bribery or the like, but against a different type of abuse, the use of it as a form of lottery, as a get-rich quick scheme which is a practice that is increasingly common in the U.S.A. The law is a place where we ought to seek redress and a forum where behaviour can be called into question. It exists as a backdrop against which our daily activity takes place and it provides context. Whatever you do, if you violate the precepts we as a society have agreed ought to govern our behaviour towards each other in our daily transactions, you are subject to redress under law. We must, in other words, have the right to seek redress – the possibility of an action against someone for a faulty product or a misrepresented service has to be there but this must be a right that is exercised and applied in a balanced and mature manner. I’m not sure how we can define it yet but, like the duck, I think I can recognise it’s abuse when I see it.

What is odd about all this is how the materialist ethic actually militates against happiness. I subscribe to the Aristotelian notion of what happiness is. Very briefly, I believe that happiness is a personal freedom from fears, which creates the freedom for us to focus on personal growth and realisation. The fears from which we seek to be free are the fear of want and fears for our safety and the safety of our loved ones. The best way to secure that freedom from these fears is fairly straightforward, it is achieved socially. That society which works to eliminate the fear of want amongst its members creates a society in which the fears for personal safety are less. The reason is that if your neighbour is free from the fear of want, he is less likely to want to take from you. He is more likely to focus on making sure that he and his family are safe once he is free from want. To ensure that he stays free from fear, he ought, as a matter of course, to work to ensure that his neighbours are as free from the fear of want as he is, otherwise they will threaten his and his families security. To be most happy and most free to pursue my own selfish objectives (which, of course, cannot threaten or take away from my neighbours), those around me must be as free of these fears as I am (or as near as possible).

That society in which I can be happiest – ie, free of my fears and most able to pursue personal growth and realisation – is one in which the rule-of-law prevails. The best possibility of happiness for me is if I can depend on an impersonal and just rule-of-law to guarantee my freedoms. Deep down, I’m pretty close to convinced that fundamentally this is all we need: everything else is simply frosting, the cake is baked. If I get the condo on the beach or the Mercedes, that’s fine as long as acquisition of those things is done within the rule-of-law and (get ready to think about this one!) doesn’t threaten my family or me; in other words, there must be a balance between my material well-being and my freedom. Seems illogical at first glance but I think the reason behind it is both compelling and ineluctable.