For some reason I was thinking about it tonight, or more specifically, the meaning behind it, and it really has the capability of being much more profound than all of that. If you consider "All" to refer to "All of Humanity" rather than the other two Musketeer dudes in short pants and a funny hat, "One For All" then means that everything each of us does must take into account the betterment of humanity, not just our own self-interests, and "All For One" would be the payback - assurance that the rest of humanity would look out for our best interest in return.
How nice that would be. Society at its best and most functional. No, I haven't been hitting the bong tonight, for the record.
These are lofty aspirations, at best. It's hard enough for one person to do what's best for themselves, let alone for everyone else in the world. It's hard enough, for example, for one person to quit smoking even though he knows it's bad for him to continue, hurting nobody else (let's not nitpick about second-hand smoke, let's assume for a moment that our protagonist only smokes when he's by himself, out on the front steps, when nobody else is around).
And we all know how well it works to ask others to do anything that makes sense in any way shape or form.
To quote the inimitable Ayn Rand:
"It was only in the first few years that she felt herself screaming silently, at times, for a glimpse of human ability, a single glimpse of clean, hard, radiant competence. She had fits of tortured longing for a friend or enemy with a mind better than her own. But the longing passed."
Yes, I recognize the apparent irony of quoting Rand in a post about social sacrifice and contributing to the welfare of others, but keep reading, dear reader, as I assure you I am being consistent. If not coherent. You can blame Sir Guinness for the latter.
Where was I? Right. So. Even assuming that we, as individuals, were capable of always doing the right thing, both for ourselves and for everyone else in our social sphere (at least choosing to do no wrong by others in a draw), expecting that other people will do the same in return is quite a leap. This would require not only trust in them to do so, but also that they trust us to do the same in return, and so on, and back, and forth, in a huge circle jerk feedback loop of trust and love and giving and blah blah blah I sound like Jesus.
In order to try describe what I've been thinking about without coming across like a sandal-wearing hippie, I'm going to go geek for a minute and talk Game Theory. Consider, if you will, the preeminent example of this philosophical discussion: the Prisoner's Dilemma. Allow me the indulgence of paraphrasing this concept in my own words, because this way I can invoke the 80's classic movie Tron in order to further confuse my boy Brian.
Game Theory
Two friends break into a computer, finding themselves gloriously pixel-lated and rendered in glowing blue stripes with Frisbees strapped to their backs. They are both immediately taken prisoner and thrust into similarly glowing and blue prison cells, each aware only that they have both been given the same strangely complicated offer:
So where this gets fun, for math and logic geeks, of course, is that you now get to put yourself into one of the cells and play "what would I do in this position". A quick evaluation of the choices reveals this to be a zero sum game. That is, either option has equal risk and reward, depending on what your friend choses to do. Turning on your friend or keeping mum both have a 50 / 50 chance of leading to your survival.
- Turn on your accomplice, and if he remains quiet - you will be set free (but he dies).
- Keep your mouth shut, and if he does the same you both walk.
- If you both give each other up, you both die unceremoniously.
Therefore, only if you know for sure what your friend will chose, your choice is virtually irrelevant, as the outcome is as reliable as the outcome of a flip of the coin. And assuming that you and your friend didn't make a pact at the last Comic-Con regarding what choices each of you would make if you were even thrust into a real-life version of this exercise, it's safe to assume that you won't know for sure what your friend will choose.
If you trust your friend, however, to either already be a practiced connoisseur of Game Theory himself, or trust that he will spend as much time as you did to logically think through the outcomes, the only obvious choice is to remain quiet. Only if both of you choose this option will you both survive.
The right answer, then, in any case, is to choose for All, not just for One. Both actual choices (talk or do not talk) yield the same odds of personal death (50 / 50), but only if you add morality to the choice and choose not to betray your friend, trusting him to do the same, only then do you both have the chance at survival.
It is no small coincidence that the right logical choice in this game is also the right moral choice. It is, after all, a game devised by man.
The trick, of course, is determining whether all things actually are equal, and knowing that your friends and your enemies are honest and true to their word, and therefore worth your devotion and compassion. And that, my dear, dear friends, is why society is still a "doggy dog" or "every man for himself" sort of place to live.
Like Mad Max, except without the cool cars.
Here's what I've been trying to say here, but in fewer words:
It would be great if we could all just get along, but unfortunately life is full of those cops that beat on Rodney King for no apparent reason, so it's best to keep to yourself and take care of those closest to you. But that doesn't mean you should be a dick.Beer me, Sir Guinness!