|
Councillor Anny Scoones
The Head vs. The Heart: My Response To Edmund Burke, Slots, and the Duty of North Saanich Council
|
November 2004 (Last Updated: 1 May 05)
|
BURKE'S PHILOSOPHY AND THE "LITTLE VOICE":
First I have to say what a joy it is to be writing in regards to one of my favorite political philosophers, Edmund Burke. Burke, born in Ireland in 1729 is considered to be the original Conservative, serving as MP in Britain when he was only thirty-seven years old. He was very much against The French Revolution and advocated gradual, cautious change and adaptation of a society based on common sense, an understanding of people, and good judgement rather than an academic and intellectual approach to government. In other words, I think Burke paid attention to his "little voice", that little inner (sometimes nagging) voice which makes or breaks our night's sleep. I would like to apply Burke's views then, to our issue of slot machines in North Saanich, and to also consider Burke's idea of "the greater good" for a community, as provided by the politicians. Being a philosophical response, I'm not sure I can supply an answer, because philosophy is actually a series of questions (thanks to my hero Socrates who established the process of questioning to reach truth - problem is, questions never ever stop - imagine what kind of society we would have if we had all the answers - right or wrong).
THE "GREATER GOOD"
I'll begin with questioning then, what exactly is "the greater good" (for, in this case, North Saanch) which Burke refers to when discussing the politician's duty. Some will say that slot machines will not contribute to the greater good of North Saanich. These reasons range from moral and social problems which slot machines cause for some people, to traffic problems, or increased crime to name a few. But I question, very objectively, as Socrates would ask us to, is it moral or socially right to tell another person how to live (to tell them not to gamble)?
I also ask, is morality the same thing as compassion - I think not - I would rather compassionately pick up and help a gambling addict have a good life than to tell them (morally) not to gamble. Which action I wonder would contribute to "the greater good" of a community in the long run? If we are compassionate, morality will take care of itself. I am not sure it is a politician's role to protect people from themselves - it is my role I believe, to help them live well in North Saanich after they make their own decisions.
THE HEAD VS THE HEART
Let's now look at the referendum result which was in favour of installing slot machines at Sandown and consider the "greater good" from this side - the greatly touted increase in revenue for North Saanich, the perks and revitalization of Sandown. These are hands on benefits - good things and visible, and with good management, might also contribute to the public good (if you won't admit this, remember that Burke said that we must be unbiased). I call the argument over the slot machine issue a battle between the HEART (the emotional social issue) and the HEAD (the money and its benefits). This is the "weight" that Burke refers to that a politician carries. Which is right for the greater good of North Saanich, the head or the heart?
The referendum selected the "head". We are divided but can live with both - we could, for example, make decisions of the head (as the majority did on the referendum), but live by a compassionate principle.
IMPERFECTION:
I would like to quote a contemporary philosophical writer Bryan Magee (The Story of Philosophy, 1998). When referring to Burke's views he states
Human beings are imperfect creatures, and therefore the idea that any human society could be perfect is an idle fancy - another reason why the aims of idealists are unattainable. Governments have to deal with people as they are, extremely unequal in talent and ambition yet each a mixture of good and bad.
Burke's premise was that change and adaptation must be done well, without oppression or revolution, and that politicians must consider the social reality that is here today, that has developed over a long history. I plan to do this when we vote on this weighty, weighty issue. I am not defending slots, rather questioning Burke's term and use of "the general good".
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Related Articles:
Edmund Burke, Slots, and the Duty of North Saanich Council
Betting on Slots
Gambling with the ALR
Who Wins at the Slots?
Which End of the Horse?
Soft Sell
Racing ahead with Sandown
Readers' Comments:
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received. Comments submitted by our readers are the personal views of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of North Saanich Online.
Bob Gibson, North Saanich
Anny Scoone's embracing of the philosophy of Edmond Burke for her decisions at Council re: Sandown Slots suggest she would achieve a better use of her time,(and no doubt a better sleep) if she were to rely on sources much more contempory than vintage 1750s from a philospher of note, but one also known to receive considerable of his insights through the contemplation of and consumption from his favorite whiskey bottle.
Geoff Orr, North Saanich
I disagree with Bob Gibson. I fail to understand what the benefit of more contemporary philosopher might be. To quote, Burke "...advocated gradual, cautious change and adaptation of a society based on common sense, an understanding of people, and good judgement rather than an academic and intellectual approach to government."
This 'philosophy' would seem to be an approach that those of us in the current century should adopt as well.
You seem to have other information about Burke's affinity for certain beverages that the rest of us may not be aware of. Does that change his statement of philosophy? I don't think so.
You provide no other commentary other than your criticism of Annie's choice of references - so what do you really think about slots in North Saanich?
I think that Annie has provided a very realistic view of the challenges she faces as a councillor on issues such as slots at Sandown.
Bob Gibson, North Saanich
Geoff Orr fails to understand that we live in times far removed from Edmond Burke...in his day news of developments took months to travel from one end of the country to the other. Today, such information is communicated instantaneously. This is not to say his philosophies lack credibility for the times, they didn't. Contemporary times suggest that Burke's "gradual and cautious change, based on common sense and good judgment" are still valid, but only within the context of contemporary "pacing".
Within NS administration too, it has also been noted by many people that there exists a "deficit" in common sense and good judgment...consider the "Marina Expansion" proposal for one, and move on to the "Sandown Question" for another.
Since you ask, I'm completely ambivalent about "slots", preferring "sweat activities". However, in light of just how much information has been presented suggesting the many problems such activity creates, (try watching the 5th Estate or reading the many newspaper articles on the subject), any rational observer has to ask why is NS administration so "hell-bent" on importing these problems to North Saanich? For some answers I can only point to a well financed promotional campaign by the "FOR" component and some rather questionable information placed in the public eye that influenced the "less interested" residents to abdicate their responsibility and not vote.
I like Anny and what she is trying to do...but, I think she should rely less on obscure middle ages philosophers, and more on what her heart says is the "right thing to do" for North Saanich.
Let's face it, those tax dollars may never materialize...and even if they do, in whatever quantity, they could be quickly used up to counter the many problems the experiences of other communities have indicated will occur (and that's a question for "the head"!).
|
