Can there be a grey area when it comes to justice? Can someone be neither right nor wrong? Can the existentialist individualism be extrapolated to include groups of people? Quite a few people now have labeled me a radical for having no ability to compromise on any issues. What they don't realize is that these are questions of morality, and one cannot compromise in ethics. I have never in fact heard of any philosopher who compromised on his theory of ethics.
Such questions as mentioned above are therefore, in essence, very foolish. My morality is very simple. But, just to be sure, let's provide a clear proof and explanation of why it is so in the form of a logical argument based on the following premises:
1. All individual actions of a person must be either moral or immoral.
2. All aggression is immoral.
3. Aggression is defined as an attack on property to which the attacker has no right.
Firstly, the notion of an act being both moral and immoral or neither of those is excruciatingly silly. All human acts are within the scope of the study of ethics (that is the whole point of ethics - it is universal). All acts are therefore put into two categories: moral and immoral (that is how all ethical systems work). In my case, I classify acts of aggression as immoral and all consensual acts as moral. If someone disagrees with that premise (i.e. they suggest that aggression can be moral or consensual acts immoral) then all the power of logic cannot help me persuade them. It is difficult to prove that aggression is immoral. I assume this stance because I feel it is wrong. However I also realize the fact that all reasonable beings refrain from aggression wherever possible may constitute some proof of me being correct.
Secondly, what about acts being partially wrong? I have been given the example of Milton Friedman. His classical liberal philosophy is inherently flawed, but can it be moral? After all be partially agrees with anarcho-libertarians on some topics. Let me answer this by giving a simpler example. Can murder be partially moral? Is a person who kills one person more moral than a person who kills fifty? How about a thief? If a thief steals my wallet is he more moral than a thief who steals my wallet and then bashes me over the head? Certainly in pragmatic terms there is a difference. I would rather have my wallet stolen than have it stolen and be punched. The case is the same in this microcosm as in political reality. I would rather live under Friedman's liberalism than Castro's socialism. This does not mean that Friedman's philosophy is moral, just as it did not mean that the guy who only stole my wallet without beating my up was moral! A thief is still a thief! Of course everyone prefers to have less stolen from them, but it would be better if no theft took place at all. In supporting Friedman over Castro I would not be supporting the moral candidate, only the gentler one.
People who are confused about this mix up the ethical sphere with the pragmatic sphere. For instance in today's USA the government confiscates around 50% of people's income in taxes. This means that they are enslaved for 50% of their time. Of course in pragmatic terms it is better to be a slave for 50% than 100% (and it would be even better to be a slave for 5% or 1%!), but in moral terms a slave is still a slave. And yes, all immoral things are evil. We have to minimise evil wherever possible.
NB. It is easier to distinguish ethical questions from pragmatic ones by checking to which of these two categories of questions the query applies: (1) How something should be? (ethical), or (2) How something would be? (pragmatic). For example, theft should not occur at all, but in the future I will vote for Rand Paul because that will minimize theft.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"(1) How something should be? (ethical), or (2) How something would be? (pragmatic)."
ReplyDeleteI'd love to live in a utopia, but based on the last 50,000 years of empirical evidence on the actions of human beings, that will never happen even if we evolve to a point where we devoid the lesser components of our humanity from our beings. Everyone from Shakespeare and Einstein have both stated that human nature would never allow for a pure utopian. The next best thing in existence is democracy, as a purely private property monarchy would obvious reach its limits either through bloodshed or through the quill and constitution. History has shown why people choose constitutional monarchies over absolute ones, because people have felt abuses in the latter they otherwise would have not felt in the former. In an absolute monarchy, the king can make anyone living on his property his bitch, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it other than commit the act of aggression first and take his property. Also, who starts a monarchy and how does one agree to a monarchy where one owns all the land in world? At the beginning of time, if I was the first man and claimed the world as my kingdom, then would that be it? Only God can claim that, not a monarchical man.
"In supporting Friedman over Castro I would not be supporting the moral candidate, only the gentler one."
It seems to me by saying that you are still validating the authority of democracy rather than rejecting it, even if democracy is the means to self preservation. After all, you have said the ends (self preservation) do not justify the means (democracy). Isn't there a contradiction? Also, the idea of choosing a gentler candidate is also a way of choosing the lesser of two evils, and that is a classic utilitarian argument.
Slavery- The ownership of other people's labor has been a constant through humanity. Generally Americans simply feel that they have authority over the state and can bend its powers when they deem necessary (the tea party candidates "taking back America" slogan). This authority in civil society does not assert that the state controls them, but they control the state. For instance, Debtors prison is legal, but its like the draft (U.S. selective service), it is never practiced because practically everyone finds its ridiculous and anyone enforcing it would not get reelected.
ReplyDelete"In fact, an estimated 7 million Americans fail to file their taxes every year, and in 2008 the IRS examined only 158,000 such cases. That comes out to a roughly 2 percent chance of getting caught. Even if the IRS does audit you, the agency almost never presses charges unless you have a history of committing felonies."- The Tax Institute
The idea that democracy is a utopian, perfect system is just as misguided as believing there can ever be a utopian system.
Also, in private markets for large corporations, shareholders elect through majorities a board of directors, and those directors elect a CEO in majority votes. DJI, Nasdaq, S&P 500 companies, etc. That CEO appoints presidents of different departments. Hilton Hotels, for instance, is not simply monarchical and passed on in the family to the next of kin, especially to someone like Paris Hilton. A board of directors, representing the shareholders, have to elect a person in a majority vote as Chairman and CEO, even if the founder (Hilton) nominates Paris Hilton (which he won't).
Also, if one agrees that recessions and depressions are bad and are inherently evil, and that both can occur in a purely free market economy, are you saying that the Fed is committing evil by trying to limit an evil? Or do recessions (i.e. Boom and bust cycle) not occur in a free market economy? Every economist would agree that structural unemployment is a naturally occurring phenomenon in the free market economy, but since unemployment is bad does that mean the free market is inherently flawed, and like humans, imperfect? The free market is spurred by both human rationality and irrationality (irrationality being consuming more than producing and spending more than having). Assuming the free market to be absolutely perfect, is well, like assuming that utopia can be achieved. It does not take into account the destructive aspects of human nature. By ignoring it or thinking it will simply disappear is to miss the problem all together.
Sorry I couldn't fit it all in one post. It took me a half hour to write which is a lot for me.
Well I have a few replies. For one, you are a deeply illogical person and you make many strange assumptions about the world. For example, that there are booms and busts in a free market economy, that "democracy is the next best thing", and you assume so far development of civilization has been (1) positive and (2) natural as people would want it to be. You are a very amoral person, i.e. you have no morality. By that I mean that in your ideal world coercion and aggression is all well and good as long as most people accept it. Also instead of theory you only look at empirical data claiming that theory talks about utopia which is clearly not the case.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, I'm not expecting this to be approved.
ReplyDeleteMy morality is very simple. Trust in democracy and a belief that whatever is good with democracy can be fixed by whatever is bad with democracy, as it is with most Americans. This is what I mean. I have a different ethical viewpoint, and you simply say I am amoral because your viewpoint is the only moral one.
When I mentioned a boom and bust cycle in the free market, I cite the financial panics of 1819, 1857, 1873, 1893, and 1907 before the creation of the FED.
And as for democracy, when I mean it is the next best thing, I cite Winston Churchill:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
And when you say "By that I mean that in your ideal world coercion and aggression is all well and good as long as most people accept it," that is wrong, because I am as strong of a classical liberal as one can be for most of my life. I just haven't jumped to becoming an anarcho-capitalist.
Also, Liechtenstein is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy.
You say you "believe in democracy". I would like to tell you that oppression of other people based on beliefs has been declared as evil for a few centuries now, so think about that a bit. Also, the financial crises you cited above did not take place in a free market economy (maybe you are unaware that the USA had other central banks before the Fed which also distorted the financial system).
ReplyDeleteI understand that democracy is problematic and it doesn't guarantee freedom, Jesus and Socrates died by it. And I can't morally justify it. I can morally justify your system which is entirely voluntarily and does not subscribe to involuntarily measures. But like probably almost all Americans, I just can't imagine living in one especially because the police and judicial system help enforce private contracts in the free market between individuals and companies. But note: I'm not even registered to vote because I reject the premises of voting in a this essentially two party system. If it were up to me, I would get rid of half of the restrictive clauses and tariffs in constitutional business law that form protectionist measures because they ensure state or federal crony monopolies, and privatize social security, medicare, and medicaid or move it into a volunteer trust fund under judicial law supervision because the scheme will bankrupt America like it has to the EU.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this is from wikipedia: "In 1969, Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, after examining the history of business cycles in the US, concluded that "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false." He analyzed the issue using newer data in 1993, and again reached the same conclusions."
And from Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations:
"The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person..." and also "Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty."
I know you reject classical liberalism, but I do not find it immoral or amoral.