The State of The Union and The Culture of Responsibility教育阿特拉斯大學
未找到專案。
The State of The Union and The Culture of Responsibility

The State of The Union and The Culture of Responsibility

|
四月 4, 2010

January 30, 2002 -- In his powerful State of the Union address, President Bush gave voice to the two deepest truths of a free society: that the essential function of its government is to provide security, and that it depends on a culture of responsibility.

On the first of these themes, his words were as clear and forceful as his actions have been in waging the war on terrorism. Looking beyond the immediate threat, he set a long-term goal of eliminating terrorist networks and the regimes that sponsor them. And looking beyond the physical threat, he identified the underlying conflict of values: “They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed….We choose freedom and the dignity of every life.”

In calling for “a new culture of responsibility,” however, Mr. Bush gave us only part of the truth—and not the most important part. Responsibility, he said, means service to our neighbors and to the country, the pursuit of “goals larger than self.” He called upon us to give two years of our lives as volunteers in civil defense or in charitable work at home or abroad.

There’s no denying that free men and women take responsibility for maintaining the fabric of their society by helping those who suffer through no fault of their own, especially in the case of emergencies like September 11. On that awful day, and the days that followed, Americans responded with extraordinary initiative, setting an example to the world of how free people deal with disaster. We did not wait for the government to tell us what to do. We did not wait for disaster relief from other countries. Rescue workers rushed to the scene and did their jobs, despite the risk. So many people volunteered to give blood that hospitals had to turn many of them away. We opened our checkbooks and sent hundreds of millions of dollars to help the victims.

But life is not a series of emergencies, and responsibility is not primarily a matter of obligations to others. Our deepest responsibility is to ourselves: to set our goals in life as individuals and to pursue them by our own efforts. That means providing for our needs through honest work, acquiring the knowledge and skill it takes to succeed in life, caring for our children and helping them grow, making time for the friends and family who bring us joy, and attending to our physical and spiritual health. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same resolve to take charge of our lives. It is only when we do so that we have the resources to help others.

Freedom and responsibility are linked, but that’s not because responsibility is the price we pay for the privilege of freedom. Freedom is not a privilege; it is a right. America was founded on the principle of individualism, the principle that every person is an end in himself, with the right to pursue his own happiness, and that government is the servant of the people, not the other way around. America is not a tribe. It is not a family. It is a nation whose common institutions protect the freedom of individuals to live their private, personal lives. This is what the terrorists hate about us, what they sought to destroy, and what we rallied to defend.

If President Bush truly wishes to promote a culture of responsibility, his first priority should be to remove the obstacles that government itself has placed in the way. He should vigorously pursue the privatization of Social Security, so that we can take charge of planning and investing for our own retirement. He should renew his call for vouchers in education so that we can take real responsibility for our children’s education. He should not be offering prescription drugs or other new benefits that only make us more dependent on government, and will inevitably erode our freedom.

A freer country would be a more responsible country, and a stronger one. And a government that knew its limits would be stronger, too—better able to pursue that mission of peace and security that President Bush has so brilliantly begun.

大衛·凱利博士
About the author:
大衛·凱利博士

大衛·凱利(David Kelley)於1990年創立了阿特拉斯協會(The Atlas Society),並在2016年之前一直擔任執行董事。此外,作為首席智力官,他負責監督組織製作的內容:文章、視頻、會議上的演講等。他於2018年從TAS退休,仍然活躍於TAS專案,並繼續在董事會任職。

凱利是一位專業的哲學家、教師和作家。1975年獲得普林斯頓大學哲學博士學位后,他加入了瓦薩學院哲學系,教授各級課程。他還曾在布蘭迪斯大學教授哲學,並經常在其他校區講課。

凱利的哲學著作包括倫理學、認識論和政治學方面的原創作品,其中許多作品以新的深度和新的方向發展了客觀主義思想。他是認識論論文感官的證據》的作者;客觀主義中的真理與寬容,論客觀主義運動中的問題;粗獷的個人主義:仁慈的自私基礎;以及《推理的藝術》,這是一本廣泛使用的入門邏輯教科書,現已出版第 5 版。

凱利曾就廣泛的政治和文化主題發表演講和出版。他關於社會問題和公共政策的文章發表在 《哈珀斯》、《科學》、《理性》、《哈佛商業評論》、《弗里曼》、《論原則》等雜誌上。在1980年代,他經常為 《巴倫週刊》財經和商業雜誌 撰寫有關平等主義、移民、最低工資法和社會保障等問題的文章。

他的著作 《一個人的生活:個人權利和福利國家》 批判了福利國家的道德前提,並捍衛了維護個人自主、責任和尊嚴的私人替代方案。1998年,他出現在約翰·斯托塞爾(John Stossel)的ABC/TV特別節目“貪婪”中,引發了一場關於資本主義倫理的全國性辯論。

作為國際公認的客觀主義專家,他廣泛地講授安·蘭德、她的思想和作品。他是電影《阿特拉斯聳聳肩》的顧問,也是《阿特拉斯聳聳肩:小說、電影、哲學》的編輯

 

主要作品(部分):

概念與自然:對現實主義轉向的評論(道格拉斯·拉斯穆森和道格拉斯·登厄伊爾)”,《理性論文》第 42 期,第 1 期,(2021 年夏季);這篇對最近一本書的評論包括對概念的本體論和認識論的深入探討。

知識的基礎。關於客觀主義認識論的六講。

存在的首要地位”和“感知的認識論”,傑斐遜學院,聖地牙哥,1985年7月

普遍性和歸納”,在GKRH會議上的兩次演講,達拉斯和安娜堡,1989年3月

懷疑論”,約克大學,多倫多,1987年

自由意志的本質”,波特蘭研究所的兩場演講,1986年10月

現代性黨”,卡托政策報告,2003年5月/6月; 導航員,2003年11月;一篇被廣泛引用的文章,關於前現代、現代(啟蒙)和後現代觀點之間的文化分歧。

"I Don't Have To" (IOS Journal, Volume 6, Number 1, April 1996) and “I Can and I Will” (The New Individualist, Fall/Winter 2011); Companion pieces on making real the control we have over our lives as individuals.

未找到專案。
未找到專案。