Accessibility is a wonderful quality to aim for. It feels right and just to make things of value available to all, without regard for their abilities, need, or merit. It’s the cornerstone of large political movements, and of the day to day struggle of people who use wheelchairs to get cuts in the curb so they can navigate from street to sidewalk, or a mother to get an appropriate educational support for her chid. This is the best part of accessibility, a world where all the resources available are easy to get access to equally for all.
There is a more interpersonal kind of accessibility, that of of a boss with an open door policy so that employees may come in at any time to ask questions or discuss problems, or of a teacher or smart or rich person who seems like one of the rest of us, they can talk to anyone without them seeming to look down upon or withhold information or emotional warmth from others. “She’s so accessible,” you might say, about a journalist or author or actor, someone who can frame information in a friendly, clear, understandable way.
But can there be a dark side to accessibility? “They’re too accommodating,” one might say, about a person who bends over backwards to help people even to their own detriment. I know about this one because I of find myself doing this. When you let yourself be too friendly, too open, then you lose some power, confidence, focus. You may give away valuable things, like your time and money. You may have your ideas or your hearts hijacked away, sometimes by people who don’t even know they’re doing you any harm, in fact, they may not even notice they are taking advantage of someone else’s accessibility at all. And yet, accessibility and accommodating is not the same thing: one is open to all, and the other is making an adaptation for an individual. Related, but not the same.
Still, like all potential virtues, accessibility can be overstressed. In the classic struggle between excellence and equality, how can you aspire to be critical, discerning, and disciplined, when you also are trying to be accepting, non-judgmental, and free? As I will argue repeatedly during this exercise on exploring human values, there is a balance in thsi quality is needed, one that tips towards accessibility rather than restriction, but with an understanding that some resources are not better shared: indeed some resources may be wasted or even dangerous in careless hands.
Now, if the whole world was a healthier place, which I in my heart do believe it can become, there could be more accessibility, because there would be less greed, selfishness, and fear. And also, those doing the giving would be more thoughtful of the impact of their actions upon others: We don’t probably need disease or pornography or guns to be more accessible. But if everyone would be on their better behavior, as their better selves and neighbors, maybe what they open and freely share would all be more helpful and beautiful and useful and true to others.
If you like this moral musing, please check out my website, https://www.helveticastone.com., where more of my writing is quite accessible, or subscribe to this newsletter for more explorations of essential human values and values, in pursuit of avoiding vice.