Excuses, Excuses...

‘I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.’ — Marilyn Monroe.

If that is not the best excuse I have ever heard not to even try to change yourself then the better ones are so good that I haven’t even noticed them yet, and they still look like good reasons. I came across this psychological hook of a phrase, once again, on Facebook - and when I say came across what I mean is it was thrust at me by the news feed. I suspect it won’t be the last time I see it and it isn't hard to see why. What it speaks to is the idea that people can absolve themselves of the fully confessed negative aspects of their life and personality so long as they can find enough things that they think are good to weigh them out. In other words, a total abdication of responsibility.

This attitude is widespread and easy to recognise, bring up something critical about someone and more often than not the defence will include a statement about some good or righteous act that they have done, no disputation of the negatives, just a simple ‘but also...’. You will hear that same justifying argument from glib battlefield generals of the ‘you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs’ school, or from terrorist groups (just look at the RAF in post war Germany), and religious apologists who go on endlessly about charity work. What we often forget to ask is how on earth these things are relevant. Are they connected in some necessary way? Is collateral damage somehow compulsory in even just war?  Does glorious revolution simply mean horrific violence? Do we have to tolerate the odd holy war if we want the YMCA? It would be a brave man who answers yes to all of these. Not that he would be necessarily wrong, and Friedrich Nietzsche did indeed argue for something similar to this. Certainly however I don't think that this is what people mean when they thoughtlessly blurt out the quote that started this thought.

Moreover, even if they do, they crucially differ from Nietzsche in motivation. People use this as a reason not to try, so long as they are good enough, and this is surely misguided - because the only way to really find out whether you can't have the good without the bad is to actually try. Easy example; before I wrote this I thought that in a literal sense you couldn't make an omelette without making eggs, and it turns out I was wrong!