Ethics, Morality, Coercion and Responsibility

Great Debates
1

WARNING

[sub]THIS IS A POLITICAL THREAD. WHILE IT MAY SEEM AT TIMES THAT I AM WITNESSING, AND AT OTHER TIMES THAT I AM EITHER SERMONIZING, PROSELYTIZING OR SUPER-SIZING, I AM MERELY ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY MY POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. MY OPINIONS ARE INFORMED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT I HAVE BASED THEM ON MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS. YMMV.
[/sub]

[/quote]

(My apologies to anyone who actually looked for this thread last weekend. -Admittedly that would only have been one or two people, but apologies nonetheless.)

I frequently find myself, in Great Debates, defending the liberal idea of social improvement through government action. Typically, I’m told by conservatives that a “tax and spend” philosophy of government takes money out of the hands of hard-working Americans, or that “government give-away” programs promote sloth and immorality. I’m told by libertarians that taxation is theft and that government regulation of the practices of Peaceful, Honest People deprives those people of their “natural” rights.

Many of the criticisms I’ve read attack bleeding heart liberals of my ilk as being weak minded, or as intellectuals who are out of touch with the real world. These types of criticisms can be dealt with fairly easily by demonstrating the opposite in my own answers, and by providing enough contrary examples as to cast doubt on the assertions. However, many other times it’s the ethics and morality of liberalism that are under attack. The most common ethical violation cited by libertarians is coercion of citizens, either through taxation or through regulation. The most common failings found in liberals by conservative pundits are irresponsibility and authoritarianism.

So in order to justify the ethics of liberalism as I try and apply it, I find myself continually evaluating those ethics in respect to morality, and comparing the known effects of liberalism with those consequences my morality would have me desire. This thread, then, must examine my ethical and moral convictions if I’m to adequately justify my politics. That means I’ll have to perpetrate a brief autobiographical accounting in order to explain the critical foundation of my interpersonal ethics. Since this accounting is going to make the OP a long one, I’ll split my submission into three parts, ending this first post with the account of how I found my own ethical prime mover. Post # 2 will deal with my moral and ethical conclusions and the philosophies (personal and political) I derive from those conclusions. Part 3 will frame liberalism in the context of political ethics, and will submit the points I offer up for discussion and debate.

[/quote]

(xeno’s journey of moral discovery.)

I was born into a Catholic family (by which I mean my mother was a Catholic and my father was ambivalent), but we were never regular churchgoers, and the moral lessons of my childhood rarely took the form of catechisms or religious tutelage. I was raised on science fiction and rationalism. By the time I was 12, the writings of Arthur Clarke and Isaac Asimov had kicked in and I became an agnostic; later I called myself an atheist. In the callow arrogance of youth, I was convinced that all moral codes were cynically imposed by authority in order to control the meek or the uneducated. I thought the only true morality was that which allowed human survival, but that “artificial” moral concerns such as kindness and charity were necessary for human contentment. I believed the vast portion of humanity were just too dull witted to free themselves of the constraints of religion.

As I grew older, of course, I began to have the errors in my thinking illustrated for me in forceful and sometimes dramatic ways. By the end of my teen years, I had learned that the sense of right and wrong my mother had instilled in me was not just a construct of her religion, nor an acknowledgment of social niceties. I observed, to my great surprise, much evidence that morality was imposed upon “authority” by society as a whole (rather than the reverse), and that actual moral beliefs frequently seemed to differ from expressed religious tenets, even among persons faithful to a particular religion. Further, I was beginning to discover that individual choice played a much smaller role in building moral beliefs than I had believed, and “written authority” had even less influence.

Although I understand now that each individual has full choice in how they choose to act within a moral context, in how they frame their own moral beliefs, and in the ethics they choose to follow or to ignore, I stewed over the imposition (as I saw it) of the fundamental code. I felt that this societal programming was just as bad, or worse, than the enforcement of morality through religious or political authority, even though I largely agreed on an objective basis with most of that programming! Not only did I fail to appreciate the awesome importance of society as the only context in which individualism can occur, it never occurred to me that morality itself is meaningless outside of a social or religious context.

In my youthful search for a moral meaning to life, I found a general tendency among people, whether they were introspective or completely self-oblivious, to rationalize their behavior so as to make it seem consistent with their moral convictions, even when the behavior was patently contrary to their beliefs. I especially recognized that tendency toward rationalization in myself, despite those original moral lessons of my childhood. This recognition led me, inevitably, to a lengthy period of emotional jaundice, during which I tended toward either heavy-handed self-aggrandizement or self-loathing. My confusion was only heightened by my acquaintanceship with individuals who appeared to eschew moral rationalization and to unwaveringly hold to ethical courses of action. And these people were not nearly as rare as I had assumed before I began actively looking for them. Although I admired these people, I felt I was not like them, and that knowledge began to leech away my moral confidence. I stayed in this sorry state well into my mid twenties.

Until I had the one great epiphany of my life. It was, in comparison to other epiphanies I’ve heard about, a fairly obvious and seemingly mundane realization, but it hit me hard and made an immediate difference in my life. It was not a sea change in my moral attitudes, nor in my perception of other people. No, I was far too self involved at the time to have any lightning-stroke insights concerning the rest of the universe; my vision was directed inward. As I sat one day wallowing in self-pity over the myriad failures I found in myself, I cynically thought “I’m exactly the sort of person I want to be.” Now, I’d had such musings before; had even said very similar things to others, but this time the words fairly rang in my head, and as I repeated the thought I felt a kind of itchiness in the back of my mind. I looked up from the book I had been staring at (not really reading, but sort of skimming to give my eyes something to do while I pondered life), and as I focused on the clock above the table, my entire perspective changed between one second and the next.

My startling insight? The earthshaking profundity which shifted my mental axes?

Act Like You Wanna Be

2

…thud…

Yeah, I know. Not the most perceptive of self-centered little weenies, was I? Oooh, self determination… what a concept!

But this was no mere understanding of a concept for me; it was an idea in which I placed immediate and full faith, knowing that it was valid and would work for me. It amazed me with its simplicity. If I wanted to be courageous, I merely had to act as if I were courageous; if I wanted to be generous and giving, merely give generously; if I wanted to be less self involved, hey, actively consider others before myself. Act like you want to Be. The more I applied this credo, the more I began to see myself as the person I’d aspired to be as a child. I’m still following this theme almost twenty years later, and some day I hope to finally have grown up into the adult I want to be.

[/quote]

(Look, I know most people who’ve read this far are scratching their heads right about now. And really, I don’t claim to be the first and only person who’s discovered that To Be is To Do and vice versa. It may not seem like a huge cognitive leap to go from “I am a jerk” to “I’ve been acting like a jerk” but neither was it a small step for me. I suppose it was this “sudden enlightenment” that lets me immediately click with those “Sergeant York” types of conversions many Christians have reported. And when Libertarian talks about the free will of each “spirit” to choose love or hatred, I know absolutely what he’s talking about.)

[/quote]

So now, having an ethical driving force at last, I was able to dispassionately assess my basic moral convictions, which had not dramatically changed since my adolescence. In fact, I find that if I phrase each moral conviction as simply and basically as possible, I can come up with real underlying sociological or physical conditions which set up the moral conclusions. Furthermore, the ethical statements necessary to support those conclusions can be stated as broadly as I want, while at the same time all ethical statements can be applied as specifically in interaction with each other as each situation requires. (This may sound like “situational ethics” but it’s really flexible protocol.)

**An important side issue here is the question of “Atheist Morality.” (A search in GD for this term will yield plenty of evidence that there is still much disagreement about the topic.) I submit that one’s religious convictions are not significant to one’s morality, but one’s social context is.

Morality is predicated on the acceptance of a shared physical or spiritual reality with other moral creatures. (Solipsists need not apply.) One must evaluate the relative importance of the “other” creatures in order to form specific moral beliefs relevant to that shared reality. Lacking any evidence or theory to the contrary (such as “I created these other creatures through a supreme act of Will.” or “I was created by a deity through a supreme act of Will.”) one must assume that all other moral creatures are of equal importance to oneself.**

Using the format: Real Condition / Moral Imperative / Ethical Standard, here’s a basic list.[ul][li]Some of this stuff is not my stuff.[list][]It’s wrong to take other people’s stuff. / Don’t steal. Don’t allow others to steal, if you can prevent them.[]It’s wrong to damage other people’s stuff. / Be responsible with borrowed/rented/shared items. Use your own things in a way that doesn’t hurt other people’s things. Be clear in all of your agreements to use other people’s things. Don’t allow other people’s things to be damaged, if it is within your ability and opportunity to prevent the damage.[/ul][]Other people think and act independently of my experience.[ul][]It’s wrong to stop other people from thinking and acting. / Don’t kill. Don’t allow others to kill, if you can prevent them.[]It’s wrong to hurt other people. / Don’t purposely cause injury to others. Don’t allow injury to others, if you can prevent it. Render aid to those who are injured[]It’s wrong to restrict the thoughts and actions of other people. / Don’t force your beliefs on others. Don’t purposely get in the way of other people. Render aid to those whose thoughts or actions are being restricted.[/ul][]My experience is independent from other people.[ul][]It’s wrong to misrepresent oneself. / Be clear when you express your thoughts; be prepared to explain your actions.[]It’s wrong to allow my thoughts and actions to be restricted. / Practice skepticism. Question your assumptions. Don’t submit to tyrrany.[]It’s wrong to allow others to hurt me or stop my thoughts and actions. / Defend yourself. Try not to die.[/ul][]It is possible for me to change my mode of behavior.[ul][]It’s wrong to decide not to correct one’s errant behavior. / Act carefully. Admit mistakes. Know the consequences. Accept the consequences.[/ul][]It is possible for others to change their mode of behavior.[ul][]It’s wrong to deny the possibilities available in others. / Acknowledge the actions of others. Acknowledge improvements in others. Render aid to those who want to improve themselves.[/ul][]It is possible for others to share ideas or conditions with each other which I may or may not share with them.[ul][]It’s wrong for me to place my needs over the collective needs of others. / Render or request aid based on an assessment of the needs of others in relationship to your own needs.It’s wrong for others to place their collective needs over my needs. / Accept or render aid based on collective evaluation of your needs in relationship to the needs of others.[/ul][/list][/li]The simplest declaration of a personal philosophy based on the ethics expressed above is this: “I will live freely and allow other people to live freely. I will help others fulfill their physical needs and understand our shared realities, to the best of my ability and opportunity to do so, and their ability to accept my help. Wherever there is a conflict between any of my ethical standards, I will try to serve the moral imperative which is most directly relevant. Where there is ambiguity, I will act in a manner which most allows me to review the consequences. I will try to correct my mistakes.” The underlying article of faith in this philosophy is that change for the better is possible for all moral creatures.

The simplest declaration of a political philosophy based on the ethics expressed above is this: “I will support the social structures which are least restrictive of individual freedoms. I will work within the social structure to help others fulfill their physical needs and expand their understanding to the best of my ability, and will expect social institutions to help as well, to the best of the collective ability and opportunity to do so. Wherever social conditions force a conflict between individual freedoms and the collective physical or intellectual welfare of others, I will try to support collective actions which serve those moral imperatives which are most directly relevant to the social conditions. Where there is ambiguity, I will support collective actions which can best be evaluated fairly and with due deliberation. I will always support collective action to correct the mistakes made by my society.” The underlying article of faith in this political philosophy is that all individuals in a society are responsible to and for that society.

3

OK. We’ve come a long way to get here, but we’re almost to the main points of debate.

I once agreed on the following diagram for liberalism:

Metaphysic: Politics (suggested by Libertarian)
Epistemology: Open examination of public policy
Ethic: Responsibility
Politics: Egalitarianism (suggested by Libertarian)

(I now believe that political philosophies, if indeed they have metaphysical bases, are inherently interested only in real effects and material concerns. Therefore, the metaphysic of liberalism is Materialism. I don’t think “Politics” is considered a metaphysic.)

Based on that outline of the philosophy, I believe liberalism is the closest mainstream political philosophy to my own. I don’t take the act of affiliating myself with a mainstream political philosophy lightly. I have points of disagreement with every political party, and with all political philosophies as I understand them. Not being a political theorist or public policy expert, I realize that there are huge gaps in my understanding of each political philosophy. I’ve chosen liberalism as my preferred political ideology because it seems to have the least incongruency with the philosophy I expressed in Part 2 above.

Let me frame the comparison between liberalism (as we know it) and my ethical standards in the context drawn out by Libertarian in a recent thread concerning God’s morality:

Well, I stated my belief that morality, while it may be critical to one’s theoretical relationship with God, is also part and parcel to one’s relationship with all other moral creatures. If we broaden Lib’s description of morality to reflect that relationship, we see that it has no significant effect on our ethical responsibilities but makes us morally accountable to each other. When the concept of “God” becomes inclusive of “all moral creatures”, then those “things which are Caesar’s” are seen as a specialized subset of “things which are God’s.” Therefore, while members of society are accountable to government on an ethical level only (and therefore, government has no business legislating morality), government is morally accountable to society. So, when choosing political affiliation, I consider the moral imperatives I listed in Part 2, apply the associated ethical requirements to various political philosophies and see where the best fit is.

Which brings us at last to the proposition I offer up for debate: Liberalism best reflects the ethical standards on which I’ve based my personal philosophies.

The possible points of contention are[list=a][li]whether other political philosophies better reflect my ethical standards,[]whether my ethical standards adequately serve my moral imperatives, and[]whether those moral imperatives adequately address the moral context of shared physical/spiritual realities.[/list=a][/li]I ask that the debate be limited to those questions, and that any discussion of specific political ideology be taken to other, more suitable, threads.

I thank anyone who’s waded all the way through this OP for their patience and consideration, and I humbly thank Gaudere for her permission to try this potentially colossal waste of bandwidth.

4

I’ve read through most but not all of your thread. The question that comes to mind is that you seem to take for granted that you should support a government’s acting in accordance with your philosophy. You don’t seem to have taken into account that the government and people are inherently different and that a philosophy that applies to one might not be appropriate the another. More specifically, the actions of one are not directly parallel to the other (e.g. is welfare the equivalent of charity? Superficially it is. But OTOH, it is money that the gov hasn’t earned, unlike true charity. Maybe it’s more similar to Robin Hood). IOW, whereas the government’s actions as far as regulating human behaviour should reflect the accepted codes between people, the notion that the gov itself can be treated as just another person doesn’t necessarily hold.

5

I don’t think I’ve said what you think I said, Izzy, but perhaps the portion of my thread that you haven’t read will clear that up for you. My intention is to show why, given my particular personal philosophy, I support a particular political philosophy. I don’t think I’ve implied that the government should be treated as “just another person”, but if I have, please point out where I’ve done so, and I’ll try to rectify my poor phrasing, as that is not what I mean at all.

6

I didn’t skip any of the OP completely, I just kind of skimmed though parts of it.

There’s no one place in which you said the thought that I attributed to you. But your first two posts concerned your own personal philosophy as it applies to an individual. In your third, you said that liberalism is the philosophy that it closest to your own, presumably meaning as you’ve described it in your first two posts. But liberalism is a philosophy of government, not of individuals. Thus there is no reason that it should correlate with your philosophy of living as an individual person.

7

But why shouldn’t I formulate a political philosophy based on those of my personal ethics which can be applied in a collective manner? (And then apply that philosophy as a selection gage for a mainstream political philosophy?)

Toward the end of my second post, the last set of “moral imperatives” deal with collective needs. The last paragraph of that post tries to codify my personal ethics into a preferred political philosophy, based on the supposition that the ethics I hold relevant to a social context should be represented by that philosophy.

8

Just because they can does not mean that they should. The interests and issues are not necessarily the same. A person could theoretically believe that murder is morally justified but believe that society as a whole has an interest in suppressing it, for the common good. Or the opposite.

Point being that the issue of what political philosophy to go by must deal with the issue of what the proper function of government is, and what is the basis for this role. This is not to say that your philosophy is not consistent with this - I was merely commenting on the fact that you seemed to be glossing over this angle in your posts.

9

Ah! Fair enough, Izzy. I agree that questions regarding the scope and functions of government are important to political philosophies. However, the answers to those questions are driven by the ethics underlying the political philosophies.
[ul][li]Liberalism places its emphasis on assuring the well-being of all citizens. (Requires a fairly large and active government.)[]Socialism attempts to have the state administer the well-being of all citizens. (Even bigger government.)[]Conservatism concerns itself with maintaining the wellness of social structures. (Smaller and less involved government.)[]Libertarianism does not initiate force. (Much smaller government.)[]Communism doles out well-being based on evaluation of need by committee. (Government is everything.)[/ul][/li]I think, as long as the primary ethic of a political philosophy is clear, the functions of government are implied.

10

Yes, but what I’m asking for is the link between your personal philosophy and your political one. You could theoretically believe that an individual person should give another the maximum freedom and privacy and yet believe that the role of the government is different and should not. So the fact that you believe these things and have also chosen to make them part of your political philosophy involves two determinations.

With regards to welfare, to return to that example, very few people would say that giving money to poor people is against their personal philosophy. The sole dispute involves the differences between governments and people, both in the moral justification (coercing the people through taxation) and the practical application (whether a “safety net” discourages responsibility). So a person who supports welfare is (or should be) making a determination with regards to these governmental issues, instead of merely allowing his personal philosophy to express itself in his political philosophy. And a person who does not is not contradicting his personal philosophy, he has made a determination that these principles don’t apply to governmental actions and circumstances.

The same goes for many other issues.

11

One other thing: I am afraid that I might be taking this thread in a different direction that you intended, by this lengthy exchange at the outset of the thread, and I might be heading off a discussion of the sort you were really after. This would be a shame, especially for such a long and personal OP. If this is the case, I don’t mind dropping the issue.

12

The link is in the shared ethics. Certainly, establishing that link requires more than one determination. However, I don’t see a huge leap between the personal ethic “Don’t submit to restrictions on my thoughts and actions” and the political ethic “Don’t impose restrictions on the thoughts or actions of the citizenry”. They are both derived from the same moral imperative, and they are both subject to interaction with other, competing ethics.

I would surely be foolish to expect a political philosophy to mirror my personal philosophy in its application of ethics. In a complex, interdependent society there is a higher degree of moral uncertainty than in interpersonal relationships. But I would be equally foolish to accept radically different ethical concerns in a political philosophy I endorsed, particularly if I wish to see that philosophy become dominant in my society.

The practical application of government issues has to be decided by a pragmatic determination of which competing ethic wins out. The different political philosophies merely approach such determinations with their own predetermined emphases. I see no need for the ethical bases of any political philosophy to be different from personal ethics. The differences are only in the application of those ethics, and that difference is merely due to the complex nature of collective responsibilities.

13

IzzyR, your criticisms are appropriate. I hope that they’re serving to clarify my meaning to other people who may read this thread.* (Had you been available to consult with while I wrote my little screed, it would have come out much better.)

*[sub]Although it doesn’t seem like the thread’s much of a hit. I’d hoped at least to have andros drop in and tell me if his cat’s breath smelled like cat food…
[/sub]

14

But the problem is that the values that you describe are very widely shared on an individual level, by people across the political spectrum. Few people would contest the principle of “Don’t submit to restrictions on my thoughts and actions”, including those who disagree, to some extent, with “Don’t impose restrictions on the thoughts or actions of the citizenry”. So the major consideration is not so much whether you agree with the first term, but with the issues that may or may not differentiate the second from the first.

IOW, if the correlation was strong between holders of the same principles with regards to private and governmental ethics, one might consider the major issue to be determinating one’s private ethics, only incidently taking care to make sure they are consistent with governmental action as well. But as it is, it seems to me that the issues that are unique to government are the crux of issue.

15

Another example: Suppose a person sat down to consider what position to take with regards to the death penalty. That person would not make the focus of their thoughts the determination of what position to take on one individual killing another and then, having decided that this was wrong, expect that it would flow logically that the death penalty was wrong. Such an approach would miss the point. This is because both sides in the death penalty debate accept that murder is wrong, and the “pro” position does not rest in any way on the presumption that murder is right. Thus the entire “debate” is about the governmental aspects of the issue, and it is there that the focus must be.

I hope this makes my last post a bit clearer - I was rushed when I posted it.

16

The values expressed are indeed shared (thankfully) by people all over the political chart. The thing that ensures that anyone can pick a political philosophy which deals with ethical choices similarly to the way they would prefer them dealt with is (again) the various emphases political philosophies place on those values. This is my main thesis; please see the “main article of faith” that I attribute to my political philosophy (end of 2nd post). That is the aspect of my personal feelings which most closely matches the main ethic of liberalism.

(Emphasis in the above paragraph was added for clarity only; no animosity is intended.)

Let’s examine the death penalty question, going down the philosophies I listed a couple of posts ago:[ul][li]Liberalism -> main ethic: responsibility for well-being of citizens --> generally opposed to removal of individual rights, generally errs in favor of the accused ==> general opposition to death penalty because of burden of proof issue and civil rights concerns[]Socialism -> main ethic: representation of public effort --> generally concerned with creating benefits, maintaining order through management of public works ==> conflict between desire for strong society (pro-d.p.) and desire to protect each member of society (anti-d.p.); civil rights generally win out[]Conservatism -> main ethic: preservation of existing social structures --> generally desires the autonomy of social institutions and businesses, generally expects civil compliance with social order ==> general acceptance of death penalty because of strong desire for law and order and strong sense of responsibility to render justice[]Libertarianism -> main ethic: noncoercion --> absolutely opposed to imposition of control from government, desires that government protect citizens from initiated force and fraud ==> opposed to death penalty on absolute ethical grounds[]Communism -> main ethic: community (gov’t) ownership of property --> general tendency toward totalitarianism, general tendency to negate individual civil rights in favor of total accountability of the individual to the proletariat ==> executions may be necessary for the good of the people, comrade[/ul][/li]Now, obviously not all politicians of a particular stripe will see things the same way, but it can be assumed that they share the general focus of their ideologies.

Again, I say that I do not and would not expect that the exact same ethical considerations which result in a decision one way on an individual basis would then result in the same decision on a national basis.

My hope in this thread was to definitively refute those who believe liberals (or conservatives, or libertarians, or whoever) have faulty ethical codes simply because they approach government differently. I want to show how shared ethics can still produce radically different ideas in politics due to a slight shift in emphasis.

17

Xeno

Wow. This has got to be the best thread I’ve ever seen in Great Debates. Your Opening Post is thoroughly well thought out, and the debate criteria are carefully measured. I have read all three parts of your opening, not once, but over and over. I don’t want to ruin your debate by nitpicking, and so I won’t. I won’t, for example, argue whether politics is a metaphysic, or whether a metaphysic of materialism might disorient more than a few theistic liberals. Rather, I will deal with the camels and leave the gnats alone.

One thing you have done — and done well! — is to illustrate convincingly the relation between liberalism and libertarianism. Our philosophies are cousins. You’ve also illustrated convincingly the disassociation between conservatism and libertarianism. Those who see our fiscal policies as conservative misunderstand the very root of the philosophy itself. That’s one reason why conservatives are blindsided when they examine libertarianism. They discover that, although they are allowed to develop for themselves whatever values they please, they are not allowed to institutionalize those values and force them upon others!

I’m taking a break from my work on spiritual suffering in order to devote attention to this thread. On to the camels:

Act like you wanna be

What a wonderful insight on so many levels! No wonder your mental axes shifted. Jesus spoke often of trees and their fruits. You don’t pick pears from an apple tree, nor apples from an orange tree. A sick tree doesn’t produce good fruit, and a healthy tree doesn’t produce sickly fruit. John the Baptist responded to those who professed repentance that they should produce fruit comensurate with a repentent heart.

Your insight pokes a hole in the notion that implementation of an ideal is impractical. As I’ve said many times, whatever is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing. A liberal ethic is impractical for someone who doesn’t want to be a liberal, but is the only practical ethic for someone who does.

Morality and ethics

I just want to be sure that it’s understood that my comments you quoted about morality and ethics is not intended to imply that an atheist cannot develop a morality. The quote speaks of man’s relation with God and God’s authority over morality merely because the context in which it appeared was a debate over God’s actions. In any other context, I would have stressed conscience along with God, so that morality is a relation between a man and his God or conscience, with authority thereto given to his God or conscience.

Moral imperatives and ethical standards

I want to give you an opportunity here to deal with your omissions. You did not list the exceptions to liberal ethical standards that libertarians find problematic with liberalism. Let me give you how we see it, and then you may explain yourself:

[li]It’s wrong to take other people’s stuff. / Don’t steal. Don’t allow others to steal, if you can prevent them. Exception: Government agents are exempt in that they may take people’s stuff for what they deem to be a good cause. (Note that tying the authority of government agents to the authority of their electorate does not deal with the exception, but only displaces it one level. The fact remains that an exception is made for someone.)[/li]
[li]It’s wrong to damage other people’s stuff. / Be responsible with borrowed/rented/shared items. Use your own things in a way that doesn’t hurt other people’s things. Be clear in all of your agreements to use other people’s things. Don’t allow other people’s things to be damaged, if it is within your ability and opportunity to prevent the damage. Exception: Again, government agents may declare an eminent domain over people’s stuff and demolish it to make way for their own projects, or else declare that people might have committed a crime and therefore must forfeit their stuff to be destroyed or auctioned.[/li]
[li]It’s wrong to stop other people from thinking and acting. / Don’t kill. Don’t allow others to kill, if you can prevent them. Exception: Here, the omission is quite simple in libertarian terms: it is all right to stop other people from acting, so long as their action is coercive. Thus, coercion should be heavily regulated. Surely liberalism has some basis for limiting actions since regulation is exactly that. Upon what root principle does liberalism stop people from acting?[/li]
[li]It’s wrong to hurt other people. / Don’t purposely cause injury to others. Don’t allow injury to others, if you can prevent it. Render aid to those who are injured. Exception: Isn’t it all right to hurt a mugger if that is what is required to stop him from taking your wallet? Again, I’m sure liberalism allows for exceptions that you’ve omitted. Upon what root principle does liberalism allow people to hurt other people?[/li]
[li]It’s wrong to misrepresent oneself. / Be clear when you express your thoughts; be prepared to explain your actions. Exception: Isn’t it all right to lie and tell a rapist who prefers only college co-eds that you are not a student, or a serial killer who is looking for your sister that you don’t know where she is? Upon what root principle does liberalism allow people to misrepresent themselves under certain conditions?[/li]
[li]It’s wrong to allow my thoughts and actions to be restricted. / Practice skepticism. Question your assumptions. Don’t submit to tyrrany. Exception: How then does liberalism, as practiced by Minty and others, justify criticism of Randy Weaver? Or David Koresh? Upon what root principle does liberalism sometimes force people to submit to tyranny?[/li]
[li]It’s wrong for me to place my needs over the collective needs of others. / Render or request aid based on an assessment of the needs of others in relationship to your own needs. Exception: Is it morally wrong, if you need a heart transplant that you can barely afford, to refuse to surrender your money to benefit someone else? Upon what root principle does liberalism decide for others what they do or do not need, and what is the need of the collective?[/li]
Individuals and society

As you know, nothing quite makes a libertarian groan more than the anthropomorphizing of society. And here’s why. How you define a society is a statistical arbitration. No problem with that, so long as you are using your arbitrary conclusions to do something as innocuos as marketing a gizmo you’ve invented, or a service you’re offering. Thus, you might be interested in defining a society of people with foot odor if you’re marketing an odor absorbent, or a society of travellers if you’re marketing a travel agency.

The problem comes about when you define a society as the set of all who are governed by government agency X, and then use your arbitrary conclusions to make governmental policy. Within that set, there are differences so broad as to make arbitration meaningless. The needs of those in South Central Los Angeles are not necessarily like the needs of those in rural Wyoming. Yet a federal Department of Education enforces the same standards upon both. The needs of gay adolescent males are not necessarily like the needs of straight men in their seventies. Yet the same federal statutes and regulations apply to both.

The only commonalities that can be found from such a diverse set of individuals are animalistic commonalities like the need for food, clothing, and shelter. Even then, you might step on the toes of people on hunger strikes, people who prefer to be nude, and people who enjoy survivalist camping.

You say that the “underlying article of faith in this political philosophy [liberalism] is that all individuals in a society are responsible to and for that society.” So take the case of the gay man. Perhaps he does not place himself in the same society as the one you foist upon him. Why must he be forced to be included in the same society as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? Maybe he would like to define his own society that he feels best meets his own needs as he defines them. If I am a gay man, and you tell me that I am responsible to my oppressors, simply because you have arbitrated that they and I are of the same society, then I am sorely mad at you.

Points of contention

[li] whether other political philosophies better reflect my ethical standards[/li]
I believe that libertarianism — classical liberalism — does. It prohibits stealing and fraudulent misrepresentation. It makes allowance for force or misrepresentation when it is a reaction to someone else’s force or misrepresentation. It allows people to think and act freely within a sensible ethical framework, namely that they cannot act coercively or fraudulently. It allows the gay man to pursue his own happiness in his own way while allowing the straight man in his seventies to do the same. It allows people in South Central Los Angeles to set their own standards according to their own needs (which are unknowable by people who live in mansions in DC suburbs) while allowing people in rural Wyoming to do the same. It removes “conflicts of rights” by apportioning rights in accordance with the individuals’ autonomous and unique elements of identification.

[li] whether my ethical standards adequately serve my moral imperatives[/li]
I don’t believe they do, unless you can rationalize the omissions I’ve enumerated.

[li] whether those moral imperatives adequately address the moral context of shared physical/spiritual realities.[/li]
Recall how Kant showed that, for a moral imperative to be sufficient, it must be a morality that can apply universally. You cannot make “no stealing” a moral imperative if you will allow that some people, duly “authorized”, may steal. You cannot make “no destroying property” a moral imperative if you will allow slaves to break the chains their masters have put on them and run away.

(One gnat that I cannot let slide. There is no necessary implication from libertarianism that a government must be small if you mean small in size. The only necessary implication is that it be small in scope. Its size must be as large as is necessary to effect its duty.)

18

This is my third attempt at a reply, and they are become shorter and shorter each time.

I think the fundamental difference here is that of the relationship an individual has with society, or indeed with any group of persons. Or, really, and small group of persons with any large group of persons.

There is nothing wrong with being nice. Is there something wrong with forcing people to be nice? Liberals, it seems, would say no. Indeed, in this context the government is a parental role to the personified society(ies). That we cannot trust people to be nice but can trust a government to not only be nice but make us be nice when they are made up of the same people we can’t trust gives me a bit of a turn. How do you address this?

19

Thank you, Lib; those are exactly the sorts of questions I was hoping for! I’d be interested at some point in discussing a few of those “gnats” with you (because, frankly, my understanding of philosophical issues is based on quite a lot of reflection, but not nearly enough study). However, the camels are precisely what I want to talk about, so let’s look at those exceptions you’ve listed.

Firstly, I need to expand on the differences I see between the ethical standards utilized by a political philosophy, and the main ethic or foundation of the philosophy. As I said to Izzy, I expect that the political philosophy I endorse will represent ethical standards similar to my personal ethical standards. That is to say, if I believe that allowing others their personal freedom of expression is ethically important (which I do), I expect that liberalism will promote public freedom of expression (which it does). Now, in almost any situation requiring a political -or even a purely personal- decision, there is never only one ethical standard to be considered. This is a given, which means we must frequently negotiate a path through competing ethics toward a morally acceptable goal. Thus, the fundamental ethic of a philosophy must be that moral compass, in the same way that “Love” should guide the behavior of a Christian when facing ethical dillemas.

I believe that “all individuals in a society are responsible to and for that society.” While that may be an overcompensation for my antisocial tendencies as a youth, it is the underlying principle I apply to my political beliefs. Contemporary liberalism is based on the belief that governments must be responsible to the collective needs of the governed, while allowing the maximum possible freedom. The underlying principle is that a social contract exists in which all citizens are responsible to contribute to the welfare of all other citizens. When I apply my ethical standards to real life situations, I am mindful of my responsibility to my fellows. When government applies ethical standards to political situations, the liberal politician is mindful of his/her repsonsibilities to the welfare of all citizens.

Let’s follow the liberal lodestone through your minefield of exceptions, Lib:[ul][li]It’s wrong to take other people’s stuff. / Don’t steal. Don’t allow others to steal, if you can prevent them. Lib’s Exception: “Government agents are exempt [from the prohibition against stealing] in that they may take people’s stuff for what they deem to be a good cause. (Note that tying the authority of government agents to the authority of their electorate does not deal with the exception, but only displaces it one level. The fact remains that an exception is made for someone.)” xeno’s Rebuttal: Taxation is part of the agreement by which those stakeholders in the social contract contribute to and participate in the collective welfare. Citizenship and commerce provide stakes in the contract. Pursuing the terms of a contract is not stealing. No ethical standards were hurt or killed during the production of this rebuttal.[]Lib’s Exception: “Again, government agents may declare an eminent domain over people’s stuff and demolish it to make way for their own projects, or else declare that people might have committed a crime and therefore must forfeit their stuff to be destroyed or auctioned.” xeno’s Rebuttal: You forgot to mention that, when eminent domain is invoked the property holder must be compensated (usually “fair market value”). The relevant ethical standards here are Be responsible with borrowed/rented/shared items and Be clear in all of your agreements to use other people’s things. The principle of eminent domain is not a uniquely liberal principle. Property forfeiture laws are not part of the liberal agenda; I don’t think this is a fair charge against liberalism.[]Lib’s Exeption: “Here [in the prohibition against killing], the omission is quite simple in libertarian terms: it is all right to stop other people from acting, so long as their action is coercive. Thus, coercion should be heavily regulated. Surely liberalism has some basis for limiting actions since regulation is exactly that. Upon what root principle does liberalism stop people from acting?” xeno’s Rebuttal: The root principle is that “a social contract exists in which all citizens are responsible to contribute to the welfare of all other citizens.”[]Lib’s Exception: “Isn’t it all right [as an exception to the prohibition against injuring others] to hurt a mugger if that is what is required to stop him from taking your wallet? Again, I’m sure liberalism allows for exceptions that you’ve omitted. Upon what root principle does liberalism allow people to hurt other people?” xeno’s Rebuttal: Liberalism does not, as a philosophy, discourage appropriate defense of one’s life, liberty and property. Your question is only relevant to individual actions, not political actions. However, on an individual basis, I would say that the situation requires the application of ethical standards which serve the moral imperative It’s wrong to allow others to hurt me or stop my thoughts and actions.[]Lib’s Exception: “Isn’t it all right to lie [to forestall a rapist or serial killer]? Upon what root principle does liberalism allow people to misrepresent themselves under certain conditions?” xeno’s Rebuttal: Again, this is an individual concern, not a political concern. Liberalism allows for self defense. Same moral imperative as above.[]Lib’s Exception" “How then does liberalism, as practiced by Minty and others, justify criticism of Randy Weaver? Or David Koresh? Upon what root principle does liberalism sometimes force people to submit to tyranny?” xeno’s Rebuttal: You’ve lost me here, Lib. Firstly, I don’t see anything unethical in criticism, and secondly, I don’t see how submission to tyranny applies here; surely you’re not claiming that Randy Weaver or David Koresh were tyrannized by liberalism?[]Lib’s Exception: “Is it morally wrong, if you need a heart transplant that you can barely afford, to refuse to surrender your money to benefit someone else? Upon what root principle does liberalism decide for others what they do or do not need, and what is the need of the collective?” xeno’s Rebuttal: Your heart transplant example is not necessitated by any liberal idea of public welfare that I’m aware of. As to your second question, no root principle can be the basis for a decision regarding collective needs; the root principle merely serves as a guide for collective actions to address needs which must be determined pragmatically and (sorry to keep repeating the word, but that’s how it’s done) collectively through democratic and representative processes.[/ul][/li]
Lib, let me come back in another post (in a few hours) and address Individuals and society -which seems to be the concern erl has as well- and your other points of contention. I’m really enjoying this thread, but I gotta devote some more time to work.

[arnold]I’ll be back.[/arnold]

20

No problem, Xeno. I’ll wait before I respond about the, um, alleged “contract”. :wink: As one who has endured piling on, I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, least of all you.