My father was fond, especially as his children
approached various milestones or accomplishments in
their lives, of telling the old story about the elated
graduate who raced excitedly from his ceremony to
declare, "Here I am world. I have my A.B."
The world smiled a wry, weary smile and said, "Nice
work, son. Now sit down and let me teach you the rest of
the alphabet. Plan on it taking a lifetime."
It is not a coincidence that graduation ceremonies
are called commencements. Graduating from any level of
schooling is an accomplishment to be celebrated, but in
terms of your life on this planet, it is just the
beginning of a lifetime (at least one would hope so) of
continuing to learn and making decisions grounded in
sound principles informed by solid learning. Among the
hardest tasks of anyone who hopes to be fully human
rather than just a cog in the machine is deciding what
principles will guide you and how closely you will
adhere to them.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in
matters of principle, stand like a rock," Thomas
Jefferson wrote to one of his nephews in one of the
detailed letters of advice he lavished on younger
relatives toward whom he felt some kind of tutelary
obligation. But what is a principle, as compared to a
fact, an opinion, a preference, a whim, a circumstance
or a plan of action? And what do you do when your
principles seem to clash?
First a demurrer. The idea that it is important to
have coherent, consistent principles might not seem
necessary - might not even seem efficacious - in the
world graduates will be learning from. We all know of
people who seem to survive and thrive with no particular
principles, let alone consistent ones, beyond seizing
opportunities, looking for the main chance, and shifting
philosophical allegiances when the cultural winds
shift.
The main reason to seek, hold and live by principles
is for oneself, not for one's friends, neighbors or the
world at large. The principled person can look back at a
life and be able to say, "I wasn't perfect, and I might
not have been successful as the world views success, but
I had principles and I stuck to them. I was my own
person." That beats having the pleasure of success
tempered by the knowledge that you drifted or chose to
behave less than honorably.
Kenneth Ellwein, executive director of Lutheran High
School in Orange, of course, believes principles should
be spiritually grounded, in Judeo-Christian teaching and
scriptures. "Without such a grounding decision-making
can be hit-or-miss," he told me. Whatever your religious
orientation, if any, it can't hurt to operate as if a
powerful, benevolent personage actively wants you to
become better in every way throughout your life.
I believe there is such a person, so I try to be
personally honest, which is not always easy for me; I'm
often tempted to fudge - or let's be honest, lie - when
I've done something stupid or embarrassing. I like Bob
LeFevre's rule about personal conduct: "Harm no one;
after that, do as you like." I believe personal coercion
among adults is immoral, but I sometimes carry
persuasion to the edge of coercion. I can't imagine
starting a fight, but I stand ready to defend
myself.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "principle" as:
"A fundamental truth or proposition on which many others
depend; a primary truth comprehending, or forming the
basis of, various subordinate truths; a general
statement or tenet forming the (or a) ground of, or held
to be essential to, a system of thought or belief; a
fundamental assumption forming the basis of a chain of
reasoning." A secondary definition is "A general law or
rule adopted or professed as a guide to action."
I assume, for example, that people are created equal
- not in the sense that they all have the same color
hair or the same abilities or potential, but in the
sense that none is entitled to special privileges,
whether bestowed as a result of skin color, ethnic
origin, sex or political influence. Equal in the eyes of
God and (ideally) in the eyes of government. From that
fundamental principle, it seems to me, one can derive
the idea that (as Jefferson put it again) some are not
born with saddles while others are born with boots and
spurs, destined to rule the hoi polloi, and most of the
other ideas that lead to the conclusion that a society
in which people are free to make their own decisions
about their own lives is preferable to any other.
But others might not agree with the entire chain of
reasoning. And that general principle doesn't tell you
whom you should support (if anyone) in a political race
or what actions you should take to manifest your
principles in the larger world. It doesn't tell you
whether a particular function of government should be
privatized tomorrow. That will require thought -
sometimes deep, hard thought - and a clear-eyed view of
the realm of the possible.
My favorite music is what we only half-accurately
call "classical" and my favorite composer is Mozart.
That's a preference, not a principle. It is probably a
deep truth that music is important to human beings, but
is any kind objectively best? Doubtful. In such areas
one should enjoy what one likes and allow others to do
likewise rather than trying to prove that one kind or
another comports with your deepest principles.
That suggests a potential danger in living by
principles: that they can devolve into a rigid ideology
that pretends to explain everything and can cause you to
deny or obfuscate inconvenient truths you may encounter.
The Soviet communists believed so strongly that
humankind could be molded into the perfect, socially
responsible New Soviet Man that they denied the
developing science of genetics and supported an
alternate theory, Lysenkoism, that argued in the face of
numerous countervailing facts that people are formed by
society and have no inherent traits.
(The two views can be integrated into a view that
both inherent characteristics and social circumstances
influence human beings, but not if one is blinded by
ideology.)
Ayn Rand loved the kind of light 19th-century
overtures, dances and incidental music she called
"lollipops." Fine. But she made a few desultory attempts
to try to prove that such art was most conducive to an
objectivist ethos and human freedom, while baroque music
was degenerate and collectivist. Silly.
So there are pitfalls. You want to be careful about
principles, searching diligently for ideals that are
first principles rather than derivative ones. You don't
want to base them on current scientific or sociological
knowledge unless you are willing to change or abandon
them if such knowledge is superceded. And you don't want
to confuse your preferences or prejudices with genuine
principles, or get so caught up in ideology that you
come to view scientific or knowledge breakthroughs as
potential threats to your belief system.
But think about a life without principles. You'll be
blown about by circumstance, making compromises even
when it's not necessary, worrying about how you will
look to somebody else rather than how something you're
thinking about doing comports with your inner compass.
Your ethics are likely to be situational rather than
grounded.
Living by principles requires constant thought about
how to apply them and a willingness to challenge and
rethink them. It will almost certainly require giving up
some immediate benefits; it could mean choosing a less
lucrative career path than might be available to those
more willing to compromise.
But being true to yourself and your beliefs helps you
to feel better about yourself. Constant thought -
continuing to use and stretch your brainpower - wards
off some of the ill effects of aging. So you'll live
longer and be happier (though life without sorrow and
tragedy is a delusion). Not bad.