Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I agree that we are hardwired to be selfish. Okay. How on earth does that fact then extend to us feeling the need to extend that saving desire to the rest of the world? Other cultures do not exhibit this tendency, and even comment on how “American” it is for people to do things the government is meant to do (France especially comes to mind). That tendency is a social offshoot of our political roots - the original separation our country had between social tasks and government tasks (which were strictly relegated to diplomatic, trade, and infrastructural concerns).

I have considered why people value what they value (I am not sure in this case who you mean by we - the Left, you, or humankind?), and that is precisely why I have written this post. This post, which, I should point out, is a lament, not a call to arms. It is a lament that people do not consider why they value what they value. A lament that they do not question themselves so as to recognize when perhaps their values are self-defeating.

But, truthfully, I do not expect this to change. All of human history would indicate that this will not change. We are still grappling with the same questions we grappled with 2000 years ago. And that is why I lament but do not suggest “fixing” things. I can only change myself by becoming aware of the world around me, and nothing and no one more.

It might be near impossible for a person not to construct a world view intricately linked to self-interest.

And obviously, self-interest runs the spectrum from the classic Rawlsian veil of ignorance/original position to exquisite narcissism.

But, from an evolutionary standpoint, we are hardwired to preserve ourselves before we contend to the needs of the rest of the tribe. I am thinking back to Martha Nussbaum’s theory of concentric circles, where you will act to preserve your own village’s wellbeing and interests before you do the same for your country, etc.

It does seem to be a human blindspot, that even the best of us cannot rise above our unoriginal positions, and stop trying to do a one-stop rescue mission where we help our village and save the rest of the world.

That being said, you also need to consider why we do value what we value, and the ways in which our own values and ideas of the good life are intermingled, in a truly organic sense; and not incorrectly conflated, as you contend.

As for the logic behind “lesbian=feminist4evr!!!”? It’s really an offshoot of the attitude I discussed in the post.

People are generally too self-interested to consider causes that aren’t intricately linked to their own well-being. They also lack the imagination to consider that others may not feel the same. (This ties in to your complaint that traditional feminist perspectives are narrow.) Ergo - since I’m a woman and I like other women, so the thinking goes, I’m would seem an obvious shoe-in for anything that purports to improve my own personal situation as a woman.

I chose feminism as an example because I have had the most personal difficulty and fights with those who adhere to its strictures, but I do want to make it extremely clear that these attitudes are not unique to feminism. They aren’t unique to the Left, either. But what makes it particularly infuriating to me coming from the Left is that we otherwise share a lot of points of agreement and find it disheartening to see the Left destroying its own chances at anything meaningful by being unable to rise above petty self-absorption, greedy self-interest, and smug self-satisfaction.

The self-satisfaction, especially, worries me - the Left’s well-meaning but absolutely appalling history with eugenics, birth control, rehabilitation, social services, etc paints a pretty nasty picture of elitist technocrats who think the answer to the world’s ills is converting everyone into Stepfordian mirrors of themselves. Terrifying stuff. Wanting to help others is one thing. But wanting to help them so that they can live your life is a whole different thing, indeed.

If I must pigeonhole myself, I suppose I could most closely be seen as an old school Republican influenced by modern understandings of science, society, and diversity. Diversity provides strength both biologically but also socially and politically…But that diversity cannot truly be achieved unless we embrace the widest possible range of behaviors, people, and ideologies possible. To that end, government programs and personal behavior that foster such things and allow opportunity are to be encouraged. Programs and laws that prohibit behaviors are to be used very sparingly, and only when they are a lesser evil than the behavior to be prevented.

Also, is it a categorical imperative that a lesbian should be a feminist? Because you are receptive to understanding ideas that are different that your beliefs, you might be able to explain the logic behind lesbian=feminist 4evr!!!

My issue with feminism is that for one, it promotes a point of view that misses the big picture. For example, there is the argument that the American education system fails girls. And then there are pundits like Christina Hoff Summers who argue that the education system really harms boys. Sometimes I want the two parties to meet and come to the conclusion that our current educational system doesn’t do favors to many people regardless of gender… And so it goes.

Also, traditionally feminist perspectives have only taken into account the plight of a very small subset of women (white, middle class, etc.)

Not to mention that feminism offends those people who have chosen to live their lives “-ism” free.