{"id":122,"date":"2021-03-09T14:15:23","date_gmt":"2021-03-09T14:15:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dummy.xtemos.com\/woodmart-elementor\/?p=122"},"modified":"2022-09-09T18:44:46","modified_gmt":"2022-09-09T08:44:46","slug":"living-well-and-having-a-good-life","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/09\/living-well-and-having-a-good-life\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Living well’ and having a ‘good life’"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ronald Dworkin<\/strong><\/h3>\n

On 14\u00a0February\u00a02013 one of the foremost legal,\u00a0moral\u00a0and political philosophers of the past several decades Professor Ronald Dworkin died\u00a0(he was born\u00a011 December 1931).\u00a0Justice for Hedgehogs<\/i>\u202fis the title of Professor Dworkin’s last major book published in 2011, two years before his death.<\/p>\n

A major theme of Dworkin’s magisterial work is his statement that there is a difference between ‘living well’ and ‘having a good life’. He states that individuals have a responsibility to live well, which is different from having (largely by chance or fortune) a ‘good life’. The responsibility, or at least the philosophical exhortation, to live well can perhaps be traced back to Socrates who lived about 2400 years ago.<\/p>\n

In\u202fJustice for Hedgehogs<\/i>, Dworkin gives the example of the lives of Stalin and Mother Teresa as, respectively, a person\u202fwho had a good life and a person who lived well. The message I derive from Dworkin is that Mother Teresa lived a better life than Stalin. By contrast, Stalin, whose power, ‘awesomeness’ and ability to create fear enabled him to exercise control for about three decades in the then Soviet Union,\u202fhad a good life but did not live well.<\/p>\n

In his posthumously published book\u202fReligion Without God<\/i>\u202f(2013), Dworkin opines that one does not need to author a book, make extraordinary or even significant contributions to society to be considered to have lived well. Dworkin argues that ordinary persons can live well, too. Dworkin himself lived well as evident from his significant contributions to late 20th\u202fand early 21st\u202fcentury legal and philosophical thought.<\/p>\n

Alfredo Stroessner\u202f<\/strong><\/h3>\n

On 3 February 1989, arguably one of the longest lasting personal-cum-military dictators in post-world war history was suddenly toppled. President Alfredo Stroessner (3 November 1912- 16 August 2006)\u202fof Paraguay took power in a military coup on 4 May 1954 and subsequently ‘won’ eight consecutive ‘elections’ but was himself overthrown in a\u202fmilitary coup.<\/p>\n

In a news item entitled \u2018Extinction of a Dinosaur\u2019,\u202fTime<\/i>\u202fmagazine reported on Stroessner\u2019s overthrow. Yet, if the ‘dinosaur’ became politically extinct over 30 years ago in February 1989, it took another 17 years before Stroessner actually died in comfortable exile in Brazil on 16\u202fAugust 2006 \u2013 at the age of 93.<\/p>\n

No other authoritarian leader (or former leader) \u2013 including arguably more infamous despots of the past several decades such as Stalin (Soviet Union), Enver Hoxha (Albania), Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines), Kim Il-sung (North Korea), Pinochet (Chile), Mobutu (Zaire), Suharto (Indonesia)\u202f\u2013\u202flived as long as Alfredo Stroessner.\u202fThe late General-cum-President-cum Chairman Ne Win of Burma lived nearly as long as Stroessner, but his longevity falls short of Stroessner’s\u202fby about a year or so. (If Ne Win\u2019s date of birth was 6 July\u202f1910 is correct, he died at the age of 92 years on 5 December 2002).<\/p>\n

Stroessner had a long and ‘good life’. A 1971 documentary entitled ‘The Last Dictator’ \u2013 which, alas, proved to be wrong about South America, as it saw a succession of dictators in addition to that of Paraguay post-1971 \u2013\u202fcan be downloaded from YouTube. It shows scenes from his 58th birthday party\u202fin November 1970, where Stroessner is clearly enjoying a ‘good life’ with wine, song and adoration from the assembled guests. According to some reports, Stroessner had lots of ‘fun’, too, including with some young high school\u202fgirls.<\/p>\n

Longevity in relatively good health (up to the age of 93) is very rare for former dictators and even for ordinary people. But did Stroessner ‘live well’ or merely have a long and ‘good life’?<\/p>\n

U Ne Win<\/strong><\/h3>\n

There is one other strongman from the same generation whose life and longevity of personal dictatorial rule can be compared \u2013 and in certain ways contrasted \u2013 with that of\u202fStroessner. He came from Burma, which was the formal name of the country during his long rule. In terms of actual and political longevity, the ‘good lives’ they enjoyed, their military background, the means by which they came into power and, to a certain extent, the fear and the awe they ‘inspired’ when they were at the helm of their countries, the lives and careers of U Ne Win of Burma\/Myanmar and Stroessner of Paraguay are comparable.<\/p>\n

Both men came to power through military coups. Stroessner’s rule of Paraguay (May 1954 to February 1989, over 34 years) seems to have been longer than that of Ne Win\u2019s formal rule of Burma, as it was then called, which went from March 1962 to July 1988.<\/p>\n

Ne Win, in a sense, was more ‘fortunate’ \u2013 had a better life? \u2013 than Stroessner. He retired from being leader at his own choosing in July 1988 after warning, in his last speech to the country, that \u201cif the Army shoots, it shoots to hit\u201d. Just two weeks later, in August and September of 1988, Burmese uprising was brutally crushed. In the failed uprising at least several hundred people were shot and killed as Ne Win\u2019s underlings kept his promise with a vengeance.<\/p>\n

Ne Win ‘retired’, but his influence continued. Members of the subsequent Myanmar military juntas and their wives continued, at least for a time, to call him\u202fAphaygyee<\/i>:\u202f<\/i>\u2018big father\u2019.\u202fHe\u00a0was\u00a0a power\u00a0behind the scenes for about 10\u00a0years after his supposed retirement; his\u00a0influence\u00a0only started to wane\u00a0around 2001 and\u00a0it\u00a0definitely\u00a0ended\u00a0with his house arrest in March 2002.\u202fHe died,\u00a0still\u00a0under house arrest,\u00a0in December 2002.<\/p>\n

Stroessner was in exile for more than 17 years in Brazil. He\u00a0never set foot\u00a0again in\u00a0Paraguay\u00a0after\u00a0he left it\u00a0a day or so after the coup that\u00a0overthrew him. Given the chance, Stroessner would perhaps have liked to \u2018retire\u2019\u00a0like\u00a0Ne Win, rather than being\u00a0in exile. He was\u00a0never\u00a0under formal house arrest in his own country. U Ne Win, by contrast, had to\u00a0endure that (slight) discomfort\u00a0in the last nine months of his long life. Still, more than a third of\u00a0his life\u00a0he enjoyed a\u00a0position of great,\u00a0indeed,\u00a0at least in 20th\u202fcentury Burmese history,\u00a0unparalleled power.<\/p>\n

Like Stroessner, U Ne Win had ‘fun’. Even his hagiographical biographer the late Dr. Maung Maung \u2013 whom he had appointed as Chief Justice, by decree, when Maung Maung was only 40 years old in 1965 \u2013 stated that he (Maung Maung) was sure that Ne Win could not remember the name of his ‘first love’ since many “women proved to be willing, eager brides”. (Dr Maung Maung,\u202f1988 Uprising in Burma<\/i>, Yale University Council of South East Asian Studies, 1999, page 255).<\/p>\n

It is clear that both men had long, ‘good lives’ in the sense indicated above. However, taking what can be considered a Dworkinian perspective, it may be arguable that both Stroessner and\u202fNe Win did not ‘live well’.\u202fArguably, they did not live well like Ronald Dworkin did, or, say, like Albert Schweitzer did or Mother Teresa did.<\/p>\n

…taking what can be considered a Dworkinian perspective, it may be arguable that both Stroessner and\u202fNe Win did not ‘live well’.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Saint\u00a0Mother Teresa was Dworkin\u2019s\u00a0example of a person who had lived well, although this writer\u00a0realises that Mother Teresa had, and has,\u00a0her own critics and detractors. One hopes,\u00a0though, that the critiques, if not\u00a0condemnations, of Mother Teresa have not been\u00a0as extensive as those that have been\u00a0made against Stroessner and Ne Win.\u00a0Stroessner and Ne Win would, it should be said,\u00a0also have quite a few admirers.<\/p>\n

Dworkin states that one does not have to achieve ‘great things’, write legal and philosophical treatises (like he himself did) to be considered to have ‘lived well’. Neither is it necessary for a ‘well-lived life’ to\u202fachieve and\u202fenjoy\u202flongevity of political power and a very long life, living in great luxury and at least in comfort even when they are out of political power.<\/p>\n

One can accept the Dworkinian distinction and claim that Stroessner and Ne Win while having\u00a0very\u00a0good\u00a0lives did not live well.\u202fRhetorically,\u00a0philosophically\u00a0and even ethically \u2013 roughly in that order \u2013\u00a0that statement is fair. But realistically and\u00a0pragmatically does that matter?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This article was originally published in the March 2021 edition (vol. 120) of <\/em>Australian Rationalist.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Photo by Dominik Hofbauer on Unsplash<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ronald Dworkin On 14\u00a0February\u00a02013 one of the foremost legal,\u00a0moral\u00a0and political philosophers of the past several decades Professor Ronald Dworkin died\u00a0(he<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":10473,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[63],"tags":[422],"coauthors":[107],"class_list":["post-122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-philosophy","tag-philosophers"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=122"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10569,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122\/revisions\/10569"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10473"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}