First your comment and then my response.

“Anyone who has put in the effort in their lives to work on maintaining caring human friendships will be quite aware of the priceless value of such bonds. The future will be characterized by the quality of the experiences we can promote, not the amount of objects we possess or the degree of authority we impose”.

Wisdom is not necessarily more abundant when materialism is lacking. The two may never meet or they can commingle in harmonious ways. Or, the entire polarity can be functionally inverted. Consider the huge amounts of money Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey spend on charity. Pointing at people saying “Oh, look how shallow…” (I know you didn’t actually say that, I’m saying it to illustrate a point) is not only duplicitous, but also passé. Individual temperament, cultural position, and varying psychological factors is what decides the “quality of experiences”, not some inanimate philosophical precept. Socrates was wrong about “doing the right thing” (in this context) because not everyone is interested in improving their character. Dare I suggest that not everyone is capable of improving their character? Look at it this way. Those of us of introspective or poetic bent may be more ‘likely’ to improve our character, but not those who are content or have chosen not to, or those who have never figured out how – which is in no way a litmus test to someone’s character. Then again, what do you mean by “character”?

As a philosophy student who sits in an ethics class among many people who side with Hobbesian descriptions of the “natural state of humanity,” I can offer a description of one area from which this cynicism sprouts.

The ‘is/ought’ analysis such that humanity is fundamentally in a state of war, therefore we ought to behave in certain ways, sways many minds in universities. The idea being, the sooner people get ‘realistic’ about the ‘nature of humanity,’ the sooner the ‘idealists’ will stop fooling themselves. Of course, this is usually accompanied with a tell-tale sneer. The idea which follows is that in order to prevent civil war a nation must bind together to conquer other nations.

The trouble I have with Hobbes (tracing back to Plato’s “Myth of Gyges”) is the neglect to address Socratic aims. Hobbes assumes that the pursuit of the good life hinges on the attainment of power and resources. Socrates, however, rightly asserted that even if one possessed the ability to act in any way without getting caught, one would still have reason to “do the right thing” so that, among other reasons, one could enjoy self improvement of character.

Psychology tells us that, in the long run, Hobbesian-type pleasures are ephemeral, where as the benefit of building genuine human relationships promote longer lasting joy. The same thing that holds for individuals also holds for nations. Anyone who has put in the effort in their lives to work on maintaining caring human friendships will be quite aware of the priceless value of such bonds. The future will be characterized by the quality of the experiences we can promote, not the amount of objects we possess or the degree of authority we impose.

Once Hobbesian sayings such as “human beings are fundamentally evil” are replaced with Socratic sayings such as “evil human beings are fundamentally confused,” I think cynicism will fall out of fashion — although, I never thought it was very attractive.