Danielle Levy

You might have noticed a break in the postings on the GGID-Giving Good Its Due page. It is due in part that I, as many others, had difficulty in finding items that would qualify as good. The field of reporting has been taken over by the events of the current US administration. As a citizen and a human being, I consume news of the administration, but politics is not a topic my work focuses on, so finding pieces about something I could call good became a challenge.  

I predictably kept on reading, watching, listening to what is going on, things that do not fit within my value system, things that go against what I believe would be a needed direction for the country as well as for humanity. Like many I was downhearted. And still I kept reading, watching and listening.

 After a while I became more and more impressed by some of the articles and pieces I encountered, by the clarity of some of the journalists, thinkers, others. Their understanding of what is going on, their knowledge, their perceptions enriched my own. And I realized something that we too often forget, that to be able to know what is going on is a good thing, a very good thing.  

A good thing as we know doesn’t have to feel good, it just has to advance us in some way, in this case our comprehension. I also realized that by better comprehending what is going on, I can better cope. And I hope that’s true for you as well.

*reposted from the GGID page

You may never have heard of Ingrid Robyns, a Belgian philosopher known in certain circles for her ideas on wealth including limiting how much a person ought to have. She’s interested in inequality and how the wealth disparity in a society affects the lives of so many people. Her ideas are sometimes referred to as Limitarianism. To her, who is also an expert on ethics, there is an ethical issue involved in a few having so much when so many have little. In a recent post she suggests a limit of $20 million per person.

One does not have to agree with her limit, or even her thesis on limiting wealth, to realize that we live in times when too few own too much. Do the Jeff Bezos, Elon Musks or Mark Zuckerbergs need the wealth they have?  That’ s a question whose answer might bring unusual unity as a resounding no. Robyn suggests doing good with one’s wealth, and it’s difficult for someone like me not to agree. To be fair though it is not as simple as it appears. Elon Musk’s obsession with colonizing Mars is his idea of doing good, and one must admit that advancing the cause of self-driving cars is a boon.

The point to me is not to quibble over numbers or observing certain ideas to the letter but to discover a moral balance, one that prevents the abuses of extremes and safeguards the welfare of others, especially those in need.  

That eventually involves all of us.

I’d never heard of a psychologist named Sam Goldstein but I read an article about what he has to say and found it so valuable I want to share it. He points out that our culture pressures us into shining, from kindergarten with its gold stars to social media, to so many walks of life where the message is that we need to be better than the rest. Being average he tells us is what makes the world stable. The bus drivers, the carers, the teachers, are considered average; they’re not CEO’s or stars but they make the world function better and with more compassion.

It’s OK to be who we are, he tells us, it’s important to just be present, to be where we are and who we are without having to shine.  And through our presence, he goes on, we can lead a life of purpose without needing to be a star.  He underlines that making coffee for a friend who needs to talk can be a big thing. 

Besides the instance of making someone coffee, there are so many such moments in life, moments that ought to remind us that being average doing average, normal things is beautiful.